The U.S. has now lost 2261 (http://icasualties.org/oif/) soldiers in Iraq, surpassing the number who died in the War of 1812.
Next up on the horizon is the Spanish American war with 2,446 deaths. Iraq will certainly surpass this mark. Here is where Iraq ranks compared to the other U.S. wars:
255 - Afgan War (2001-2006)
382 - Persian Gulf War (1990-1991)
2,260 - War of 1812 (1812-1815)
2,261 - Iraq War (2003-2006)
2,446 - Spanish-American War (1898)
4,435 - Revolutionary War (1775-1783)
13,283 - Mexican War (1846-1848)
36,574 - Korean War (1950-1953)
58,200 - Vietnam War (1964-1975)
116,516 - WWI (1917-1918)
405,399 - WWII (1941-1945)
498,332 - Civil War (1861-1865)
Have a nice day.
its #1 in terms of invasions tho
Any word on how many Iraqi deaths there have been?
Why are we over there, again?
According to IraqBodyCount (http://www.iraqbodycount.org/index.php) the maximum number of civilian Iraqis reported killed is 31,900. That's what's reported in the media, mind you. Actual numbers are not known, and surely higher than what has been reported.
And why are we there? WMDs, dummy!! Or was it to get rid of Saddam? But I seem to remember somehting about bringing freedom to the Iraqis. Also, someone said it was about denying the terrorists a safe haven...
Oh hell, who cares why we're there. If we are there, it must be for a good reason.
U.S.A.!! U.S.A.!!
This topic isn't funny...but I did get a chuckle out of this: http://www.coxar.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/
war is an economic booster shot to the ass. that is all.
Quote from: Diomedes on February 08, 2006, 10:09:18 AM
According to IraqBodyCount (http://www.iraqbodycount.org/index.php) the maximum number of civilian Iraqis reported killed is 31,900. That's what's reported in the media, mind you. Actual numbers are not known, and surely higher than what has been reported.
From a southpark episode-
Field Reporter: Tom, I'm currently ten miles outside of Beaverton, unable to get inside the town proper. We do not have any reports of fatalities yet, but we believe that the death toll may be in the hundreds of millions. Beaverton has only a population of about eight thousand, Tom, so this would be quite devastating.
Tom: Any word on how the survivors in the town are doing, Mitch
Mitch: W-we're not sure what exactly is going on inside the town of Beaverton, uh Tom, but we're reporting that there's looting, raping, and yes, even acts of cannibalism.
Tom: My God, you've, you've actually seen people looting, raping and eating each other?
Mitch: No, no, we haven't actually seen it Tom, we're just reporting it.
Wait i thought it was to steal the oil.
Quote from: phillymic2000 on February 08, 2006, 12:19:01 PM
Wait i thought it was to steal the oil.
No no. The oil was to pay for the war.
Oh wait, that is stealing.
Quote from: qwert246 on February 08, 2006, 01:23:58 PM
Quote from: phillymic2000 on February 08, 2006, 12:19:01 PM
Wait i thought it was to steal the oil.
No no. The oil was to pay for the war.
Oh wait, that is stealing.
now you got it, we are making a gazzilion of dollars, they paid me 2 mil just to run the pipeline from Iraq to Texas through my back yard.
Quote from: Diomedes on February 08, 2006, 10:12:29 AM
And why are we there? WMDs, dummy!! Or was it to get rid of Saddam? But I seem to remember somehting about bringing freedom to the Iraqis. Also, someone said it was about denying the terrorists a safe haven...
Oh hell, who cares why we're there. If we are there, it must be for a good reason.
U.S.A.!! U.S.A.!!
It's amazing how far from the right to the left I've shifted over the past 2 to 3 years.
Quote from: SD_Eagle on February 08, 2006, 03:14:54 PM
It's amazing how far from the right to the left I've shifted over the past 2 to 3 years.
You and me both. Now if you'll excuse me, I've got to go recruit some unsuspecting teenagers.
:-D :-D don't forget to check Dio's neighborhood!
The kids in my neighborhood would be good prospects. The schools suck so they have no education. They're poor and don't have a way out beside dealing drugs or ass. They speak ghetto language that would never pass in any professional environment. They can't do math, read or write. Best they can hope is to get a union job with the MTA or some other similar job. Armed service probably looks good to them, especially if they believe the lies the recruiters tell them.
Even so, at this point most people understand that joining up means dying for nothing, and generally being treated like shtein for your service, so they'd rather just have another stoned day on the corner, thanks.
I'll educate them on the ways of Chuck Norris!
Quote from: Diomedes on February 08, 2006, 09:00:29 AM
The U.S. has now lost 2261 (http://icasualties.org/oif/) soldiers in Iraq, surpassing the number who died in the War of 1812.
Next up on the horizon is the Spanish American war with 2,446 deaths. Iraq will certainly surpass this mark. Here is where Iraq ranks compared to the other U.S. wars:
255 - Afgan War (2001-2006)
382 - Persian Gulf War (1990-1991)
2,260 - War of 1812 (1812-1815)
2,261 - Iraq War (2003-2006)
2,446 - Spanish-American War (1898)
4,435 - Revolutionary War (1775-1783)
13,283 - Mexican War (1846-1848)
36,574 - Korean War (1950-1953)
58,200 - Vietnam War (1964-1975)
116,516 - WWI (1917-1918)
405,399 - WWII (1941-1945)
498,332 - Civil War (1861-1865)
Have a nice day.
At least in the war of 1812 we got some nice land out of it.
What the hell was the Spanish-American war about again? Something to do with trade, and then they sank a civilian ship of ours or something?
I need someone to either tell me what happened, or to make up something plausible, that I will then repeat until a more knowledgable person calls me out and makes me look like a dumbass in front of a large group.
http://www.smplanet.com/imperialism/remember.html
don't have the time to look up everything on it, so here you go.
Quote from: Diomedes on February 08, 2006, 06:03:48 PM
The kids in my neighborhood would be good prospects. The schools suck so they have no education. They're poor and don't have a way out beside dealing drugs or ass. They speak ghetto language that would never pass in any professional environment. They can't do math, read or write. Best they can hope is to get a union job with the MTA or some other similar job. Armed service probably looks good to them, especially if they believe the lies the recruiters tell them.
Even so, at this point most people understand that joining up means dying for nothing, and generally being treated like shtein for your service, so they'd rather just have another stoned day on the corner, thanks.
You've said this before, thats why i made the statement, your not getting sensitive are you?
Well, for once in my life and probably the only time ever, i'm going to agree with Dio. It's been a senseless waste of young American lives...and it may never stop.
2267 (http://icasualties.org/oif/)
Have a nice weekend.
Since last we discussed this subject, 89 U.S. soldiers have been killed in Iraq.
U.S. Troops
2361 (http://icasualties.org/oif/) killed.
17469 (http://icasualties.org/oif/) injured.
Iraqi civilians
34,030min/38164max (http://www.iraqbodycount.org/index.php) killed. (counting only deaths reported in media)
9/11 Civilians
9/11 killed: 2,986 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/September_11,_2001_attacks)
The war costs 200 million dollars per day. Everyone should know these figures. Most don't care, most Americans don't even know how many U.S. soldiers have died. The most basic shtein, they don't care.
Everything the leaders said would happen has not happened. Everything they said wouldn't, has.
"Smart bombs."
"Mission Accomplised."
"Greet U.S. troops with open arms."
"WMDs."
"Insurgency in it's last Throes."
"Link between 9/11 and Iraq."
"Homeland Security."
The only thing they've gotten right was "Bring 'em on!"
YOU have a nice weekend, assface.
Quote from: Diomedes on February 17, 2006, 11:04:48 AM
U.S. Troops
2,272 (http://icasualties.org/oif/) killed.
16,653 (http://icasualties.org/oif/) injured.
Iraqi civilians
28,427min/32,041max (http://www.iraqbodycount.org/index.php) killed. (reported in media)
9/11 Civilians
9/11 killed: 2,986 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/September_11,_2001_attacks)
Have a nice weekend.
You must be thrilled. I bet this made your weekend didn't it you sick farg.
It makes my weekend that you get so upset over fact. So long as you think I'm a sick farg, I know I'm doing right.
As for you, Jerk..thanks, I will.
Quote from: Diomedes on February 17, 2006, 11:04:48 AM
Iraqi civilians
28,427min/32,041max (http://www.iraqbodycount.org/index.php) killed. (reported in media)
i wonder how many of those were killed by being blown up by a roadside bomb set off by their own countymen.
13.
Thanks coach.
Quote from: Wingspan on February 17, 2006, 11:49:34 AMi wonder how many of those were killed by being blown up by a roadside bomb set off by their own countymen.
A lot. A lot more were killed by bombs set off by foreign militants. And then of course there are those killed directly by U.S. boms, soldiers, and corporate mercenaries. Either way, they weren't being bombed before the U.S. turned Iraq into a playground for killers for all pursuasions.
And yeah, I know Saddam killed his own people, blah, blah, blah. We provided the weapons he used and knew he was doing it. Yeah, I know he tortured people. So do we.
The fact is, these people are dead and wouldn't have been if the U.S. hadn't invaded.
Quote from: Diomedes on February 17, 2006, 12:09:40 PM
Quote from: Wingspan on February 17, 2006, 11:49:34 AMi wonder how many of those were killed by being blown up by a roadside bomb set off by their own countymen.
A lot. A lot more were killed by bombs set off by foreign militants. And then of course there are those killed directly by U.S. boms, soldiers, and corporate mercenaries. Either way, they weren't being bombed before the U.S. turned Iraq into a playground for killers for all pursuasions.
And yeah, I know Saddam killed his own people, blah, blah, blah. We provided the weapons he used and knew he was doing it. Yeah, I know he tortured people. So do we.
The fact is, these people are dead and wouldn't have been if the U.S. hadn't invaded.
well i am sure some of them were really old, maybe some were sick too...they coulda died anyway.
Since last we discussed this subject, 89 U.S. soldiers have been killed in Iraq.
U.S. Troops
2361 (http://icasualties.org/oif/) killed.
17469 (http://icasualties.org/oif/) injured.
Iraqi civilians
34,030min/38164max (http://www.iraqbodycount.org/index.php) killed. (counting only deaths reported in media)
9/11 Civilians
9/11 killed: 2,986 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/September_11,_2001_attacks)
The war costs 200 million dollars per day. Everyone should know these figures. Most don't care, most Americans don't even know how many U.S. soldiers have died. The most basic shtein, they don't care.
Everything the leaders said would happen has not happened. Everything they said wouldn't, has.
"Smart bombs."
"Mission Accomplised."
"Greet U.S. troops with open arms."
"WMDs."
"Insurgency in it's last Throes."
"Link between 9/11 and Iraq."
"Homeland Security."
The only thing they've gotten right was "Bring 'em on!"
I am just curious since when have US troops not been greated with "Open Arms"? 99% of the people I talk to don't have an issue with the troops it is the leadership. In fact when I was going home for X-mas I had to wear my uniform home (it was part of my orders)and I along with the other soldiers was greated with a standing ovation. To be honest it was quite embarassing considering I am not a combat veteran, but majority of the people at the airport would not have known that.
I believe he is referring to the Iraqis and the troops, not other Americans.
It has gotten personal for me now, one of the soldiers I graduated Basic and AIT with was killed by an IED.
R.I.P. Private Lucas.
Wow, sorry, DMF.
Condolences... :(
Dio, your pathetic Iraqi civilian updates are a waste of time because you are pretty much the only one that cares. Die motherfargers!!
I still think it's crazy how many people died in the Civil War. Almost half a million people. It's just crazy.
How bout the bloodiest day at Antietam? WOAH!
Quote from: The Waco Kid on May 01, 2006, 04:06:05 PM
Dio, your pathetic Iraqi civilian updates are a waste of time because you are pretty much the only one that cares. Die motherfargers!!
Dio didn't bump the thread, dude.
Someone else did.
:)
Quote from: Jerome99RIP on May 01, 2006, 02:49:40 PM
Wow, sorry, DMF.
Condolences... :(
They should be for his family, not me. Of course it is always sad to hear when a fellow soldier dies, in this case I didn't really know him well but I will always remember him. He was one of the guys that started crying when we got off the cattle truck and saying he "missed home". The Drill Sgts got into him pretty good for that "Awh! Pvt. Lucas misses his mommy!" I didn't think the dude would make it through but to his credit he did.
Now the guy is dead, less than two months removed from AIT, I believe they actually just got over there in the middle of April.
Quote from: Jerome99RIP on May 01, 2006, 02:49:40 PM
Wow, sorry, DMF.
Condolences... :(
i second that. sorry brother
Quote from: Drunkmasterflex on May 01, 2006, 05:01:56 PM
Quote from: Jerome99RIP on May 01, 2006, 02:49:40 PM
Wow, sorry, DMF.
Condolences... :(
They should be for his family, not me.
He was your brother-in-arms, hence my condolences for you. Condolences for his family was certainly implied as well.
The U.S. has now lost 2448 (http://icasualties.org/oif/) soldiers in Iraq, surpassing the number who died in the Spanish-American War. Obviously, the casualty figures from the two conflicts cannot be compared apples to apples, but the threshold breached by the latest casualties in Iraq is worth noting. Iraq just moved up the ladder of deadliest U.S. wars.
2,500 is the next milestone worth calling out, and at our current pace, that will happen by the end of June. Even if you're against this war, you should know on any given day how many have died. Most people don't bother to know.
255 - Afgan War (2001-2006)
382 - Persian Gulf War (1990-1991)
2,260 - War of 1812 (1812-1815)
2,446 - Spanish-American War (1898)
2,448 - Iraq War (2003-present)
4,435 - Revolutionary War (1775-1783)
13,283 - Mexican War (1846-1848)
36,574 - Korean War (1950-1953)
58,200 - Vietnam War (1964-1975)
116,516 - WWI (1917-1918)
405,399 - WWII (1941-1945)
498,332 - Civil War (1861-1865)
U.S. Troop Casualties in Iraq War (2003-present)
2,448 (http://icasualties.org/oif/) killed.
17,869 (http://icasualties.org/oif/) injured.
I know that many of you simply don't care how many Iraqi civilians have died. They don't matter to you. They aren't "our" citizens, so they don't count. These innocent people have been killed by U.S. "smart" bombs, and by U.S. soldiers, by suicide bombers and IEDs, by corporate "security" mercenaries, and by local thugs who run freely in the lawless land of Iraq.
They didn't fight against the U.S., they didn't bomb WTC. They simply were unlucky enough to be born in Iraq, and you--lucky enough to have been born in the U.S.--don't even bother to cast a glance their way as they are murdered by the hundreds, thanks to your government.
And then you wonder why they hate you, and you spit at people like me who remind you about them.
You're welcome:
Iraqi civilians
35,119min/39,296max (http://www.iraqbodycount.org/index.php) killed. (counting only deaths reported in media)
to be honest i do care more about american lives then Iraqi lives, just like they care more about their own lives then ours. I just find it strange that you throw out that number only when the US is involved with Iraq, where were you when Saddam was doing his own killing? Where is the civilian body count before the US was involved in the country, when Saddam and his thugs murdered their own? thats why I get frustrated with your one sided rants against the US and it's people, we are not perfect by any stretch of the imagination, but then again everyone is trying to get into the US instead of out of it, so there may just be some good things we have to offer here in the land of the big bad satan..
Quote from: phillymic2000 on May 16, 2006, 10:38:34 AM
to be honest i do care more about american lives then Iraqi lives, just like they care more about their own lives then ours.
It's a round world. Wake up.
Quote from: phillymic2000 on May 16, 2006, 10:38:34 AMI just find it strange that you throw out that number only when the US is involved with Iraq, where were you when Saddam was doing his own killing? Where is the civilian body count before the US was involved in the country, when Saddam and his thugs murdered their own?
The blood then was on Saddam's hands, not ours. (Well, except we funded and armed him, but that's another story.) These civilian deaths are squarely on our hands. If they're gonna be killed anyway--and they were NOT dying at this rate--then why does it have to be us doing it?
Quote from: phillymic2000 on May 16, 2006, 10:38:34 AMthats why I get frustrated with your one sided rants against the US and it's people, we are not perfect by any stretch of the imagination, but then again everyone is trying to get into the US instead of out of it, so there may just be some good things we have to offer here in the land of the big bad satan..
My "rants" seem one sided only because you and most Americans have never bothered to look at any other side than U.S.A!! U.S.A!!
Chickens come home to roost. Wake up.
And one last thing: most days, you have no idea what's going over there. You couldn't tell someone how many U.S. soldiers have died, much less any other important fact. Farging wake up and pay attention, even if you can only muster the attention for "your own people."
I just find it strange that you throw out that number only when the US is involved with Iraq, where were you when Saddam was doing his own killing? Where is the civilian body count before the US was involved in the country, when Saddam and his thugs murdered their own?
by that premise we should bring back the draft and have all the draftees as well as every single member of current military in sudan RIGHT NOW...but that would be helping africans....instead we war...
cause without war we wouldnt be on these precious computers right now...take a peek around...war built this...it elminates our poor people and makes lots of money for the already wealthy...oh saadam sprayed chemicals on his own people...whats the difference btwn that and handing an indian a blanket with small pox...bottom line get rid of the 'undesireables' and stack chedder...mo money mo money mo money
now on the count of three everyone go grab a gun and kill some brown people
Dio... I agree with your sentiments concerning the horrible waste of human life that has occured in Iraq due in no small part to the Bush Administration's idiotic post-war strategies for reconstruction.
However, I seriously doubt that American military personnel are responsible for those 30-some thousand deaths. Insurgents from outside Iraq and Iraqis loyal to the former regime are the ones blowing up people on a daily basis, not American soldiers.
Have innocent human beings been killed by American soldiers? Of course they have. That happens in war especially in a walking clusterfarg of a military misadventure such as this one. But if you're suggesting that American military personnel are responsible for the lion's share of those deaths (and it appears that you are)... sorry, Im not buying that.
In any event, I still support the men and women who are charged with defending our country, and I believe that they're doing the best that they can, especially considering the fact that their commander in chief is an abject failure as a military leader.
QuoteIt's a round world. Wake up.
It is :o since when? Why is it that when someone voices an opinion that you don't follow you get all bent out of shape. I was being honest abouth the fact that I care about and for the safety and health of American citizens first. Why is that a bad thing? I never said I could care less about Iraq or their people, I try and read and watch a good amount of different reports about the world to keep an open look at things.
QuoteThe blood then was on Saddam's hands, not ours. (Well, except we funded and armed him, but that's another story.) These civilian deaths are squarely on our hands. If they're gonna be killed anyway--and they were NOT dying at this rate--then why does it have to be us doing it?
We are not the only ones responsible for the deaths, there are terrorists, rival religious factions etc... And I understand we armed him in his fight against Iran. I have not done a lot of reserch on it, but every site i have seen puts more deaths on avg. during Saddam's time then during our war.
QuoteMy "rants" seem one sided only because you and most Americans have never bothered to look at any other side than U.S.A!! U.S.A!!
No your rants are one sided cause that what they are, one sided. I do look at other sides, I am an American, I am going to do and think what is best for my country first, why would I care more about Mexico, or Iraq, or Russia more then the USA? That does not mean I could care less about the world or the people in it. Where are your rants on Darfur and all the issues that the UN is having with the alleged rapes, if that was US soldiers you'd be all over it.
Quote from: ice grillin you on May 16, 2006, 11:04:17 AM
by that premise we should bring back the draft and have all the draftees as well as every single member of current military in sudan RIGHT NOW...but that would be helping africans....instead we war...
cause without war we wouldnt be on these precious computers right now...take a peek around...war built this...it elminates our poor people and makes lots of money for the already wealthy...oh saadam sprayed chemicals on his own people...whats the difference btwn that and handing an indian a blanket with small pox...bottom line get rid of the 'undesireables' and stack chedder...mo money mo money mo money
now on the count of three everyone go grab a gun and kill some brown people
IGY I agree with you on Darfur and the need for intervention, the UN has accomplished nothing over there. We should be going to that region to help especially when we have called this a genocide, but then again we didn't help last time either. your last statement is just wrong.
Insurgents have killed alot of Iraqi people. Then you always have the fact that why are the insurgents there in the first place? We are there. I think going to Iraq was good and all to take out Saddam, but this admin didn't think too hard about the aftermath. The real problem is terrorist groups all over the middle-east and the gov't's who turn a blind eye to them. I felt we should of stayed our ground in going after terrorist groups instead of dealing wih 1 dictator and an entire country/government. Bottom line is their is not much profit in going after terrorists since they are borderless nomads who care about nothing other than martyrdom and killing christians and jews. Why not bomb Iraq since daddy didn't finish the job? We can re-build it and make a profit from it, well the rich can, not the common person, we'll pay for it with deaths to our friends, sons, daughters, husbands and taxes out of our pockets. Why didn't the government choose to create federal jobs to help rebuild Iraq? There would of been one way to employe some of the jobless americans who desperately need the money.
:boo :boo :boom
Quote from: phillymic2000 on May 16, 2006, 11:10:13 AM
QuoteIt's a round world. Wake up.
It is :o since when? Why is it that when someone voices an opinion that you don't follow you get all bent out of shape. I was being honest abouth the fact that I care about and for the safety and health of American citizens first. Why is that a bad thing? I never said I could care less about Iraq or their people, I try and read and watch a good amount of different reports about the world to keep an open look at things.
QuoteThe blood then was on Saddam's hands, not ours. (Well, except we funded and armed him, but that's another story.) These civilian deaths are squarely on our hands. If they're gonna be killed anyway--and they were NOT dying at this rate--then why does it have to be us doing it?
We are not the only ones responsible for the deaths, there are terrorists, rival religious factions etc... And I understand we armed him in his fight against Iran. I have not done a lot of reserch on it, but every site i have seen puts more deaths on avg. during Saddam's time then during our war.
QuoteMy "rants" seem one sided only because you and most Americans have never bothered to look at any other side than U.S.A!! U.S.A!!
No your rants are one sided cause that what they are, one sided. I do look at other sides, I am an American, I am going to do and think what is best for my country first, why would I care more about Mexico, or Iraq, or Russia more then the USA? That does not mean I could care less about the world or the people in it. Where are your rants on Darfur and all the issues that the UN is having with the alleged rapes, if that was US soldiers you'd be all over it.
I think his point is that when Saddam was in power, all the other factions were kept in line because he was the bully in the schoolyard. In a wolf pack, when you kill the alpha male, the rest begin to fight for dominance. That's what is happening in Iraq, and it's happening because WE removed the alpha male.
Humans have reasoning and thought, thats why we shouldn't act like wolfs. Yet we somehow manage to abandon thought and reason and continue to act like monkeys when it comes to war. Amazing.
Unfortunatly Bushco bought their own press and went in there without a true plan to "win the peace". Now it is a mess. I didn't like the previous arrangement where the US was left to keep Iraq boxed in for ten years. That had to cost us billions and it was a useless UN mandate. No fly zones.. please. So I don't know what the answer should have been.
Any action in Africa will have the same problems that you see in Iraq now. Tribal factions with thousands of years of animosity fighting each other for who knows what. Religion is probably the most frequent recent reason in Iraq and Africa. Putting American men and women in the middle of that kind of mess is not a good idea and it is the reason the world backed off in Gulph War I. It is also the reason why the UN doesn't really do anything in Africa, though they are trying to use African member countries to do the work on the ground there.
I don't know. I just don't think troops trained for battle should be tasked to administer a country in the midst of a civil war. Guess that's just me...
Quote from: Phanatic on May 16, 2006, 01:02:40 PMThat had to cost us billions and it was a useless UN mandate. No fly zones.. please. So I don't know what the answer should have been.
The cost in dollars was nothing close to what we're spending now--and by "we" I DO mean you and I--around 200 million per day. Moreover..the sanctions, inspections and no fly zones worked. Saddamn had no WMDs, and no airforce (or anti-air capacity) when the U.S. went in.
Because we bombed every SAM Site he tried to move below the line and we shot down every jet he sent up to try and shoot down patrols. I say "we" because I was there patroling the no fly zone on and off from 1990 - 1995. So was the US and Britain supposed to keep a lid on the guy for the next 50 years? I'm not saying the invasion was the right answer either. It is hard to say because Bushco has mishandled everything after the invasion. What I am saying is that the situation before Gulph War II was unacceptable too. There wasn't an easy answer and it isn't always a conspiracy for the US to take over the world. Some times it just being inept and that is what I think happened here.
Quote from: Diomedes on May 16, 2006, 10:50:55 AM
And one last thing: most days, you have no idea what's going over there. You couldn't tell someone how many U.S. soldiers have died, much less any other important fact. Farging wake up and pay attention, even if you can only muster the attention for "your own people."
Maybe you can apply for a government job as their official war statistician.
2,500 (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/13337155/)
:fire
They had a memorial service today here on post for a Corporal in the 4th Infantry Division, he must have been a good soldier because a good portion of the Post was shutdown. It puts the war in a different perspective when you see things like that.
Almost no one is paying attention, drunk.
It's amazing. Ask ten people who support Bush how many soldiers have died and how many have been wounded, and you'll see. They don't know, and they don't really care.
farging lives are being wasted..just totally wasted.
And then there's the innocent dead..numbering well over 10 times the count of those lost in 9/11.
Makes me so mad to think about. These rich bastiches who never served, never risked shtein, never had to work for farg, killing innocent people and sending soldiers to die. For nothing.
I like to think that it is for something, I hate the idea of thinking all these men, women, and children died for nothing. The only thing that I can say in defense of the war is that from talking to all of the soldiers that we never get any exposure to all the good things that are happening over there. But...maybe they are just trying to find something positive in a bad situation.
Dio,
Is this (http://icasualties.org/oif/default.aspx) where you're getting the casualties info?
That's where I usually get them, yeah. The MSNBC report said 2,500 this morning, while ICCC said 2,497 through most of the day. ICCC now shows 2,500.
Quote from: Diomedes on June 15, 2006, 04:27:26 PM
Almost no one is paying attention, drunk.
It's amazing. Ask ten people who support Bush how many soldiers have died and how many have been wounded, and you'll see. They don't know, and they don't really care.
farging lives are being wasted..just totally wasted.
And then there's the innocent dead..numbering well over 10 times the count of those lost in 9/11.
Makes me so mad to think about. These rich bastiches who never served, never risked shtein, never had to work for farg, killing innocent people and sending soldiers to die. For nothing.
Since when did you did a shtein about the soldiers? The same soldiers you have called merc's and murders? You hate Bush, fine...the war, fine. But don't try to legitimize your hatred by feeling any sympathy towards the troops Dio.
Here we go... :-D
Quote from: Jerome99RIP on June 15, 2006, 08:15:16 PMHere we go...
Nah. He's not worth it.
TrollJoel, if there's anything people like you have taught me..it's that I gotta speak to you in your language. None of you give a shtein about dead Iraqi civilians, but you DO care about "your own." So that's the number I focus on when I feel like reminding you that people are dying needlessly.
I have said those things, and I stand by them to a point. By the same token, I wish the soldiers weren't dead, and they're just the poor men and women dying in a rich man's war. So troll on over to some other sucker and good night.
Quote from: Diomedes on June 15, 2006, 08:19:06 PM
TrollJoel, if there's anything people like you have taught me..it's that I gotta speak to you in your language. None of you give a shtein about dead Iraqi civilians, but you DO care about "your own." So that's the number I focus on when I feel like reminding you that people are dying needlessly.
I have said those things, and I stand by them to a point. By the same token, I wish the soldiers weren't dead, and they're just the poor men and women dying in a rich man's war. So troll on over to some other sucker and good night.
Don't think for a second you know me Dio, so you can take that "people like you" shtein and chug it. All I did was point out your hypocrisy (again), then you say I am not worth a response, yet you respond anyway. :-D
zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
Go make babies already. All this sexual tension is more than the rest of us can stand.
We did, son. After you, it was Utero-Rooter all the way until Joel hit menopause.
Quote from: Diomedes on June 15, 2006, 08:45:15 PM
We did, son. After you, it was Utero-Rooter all the way until Joel hit menopause.
Now see, out of the two of us I would really see you being the
bitch.
18,356 wounded American soldiers. Now that is a hell of a number.
A crazy amount of whom are maimed.
Obviously, these aren't the maimed soldiers, but it's interesting how many that could go home choose instead to stay in Iraq to finish their tour.
Wounded soldiers refuse to leave Iraq (http://www.courier-journal.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060612/NEWS0104/606120381/1008/rss01)
Is this the right thread for a dead baby joke?
What's funnier than a dead baby?
A dead baby sitting next to a kid with down syndrome.
Congratulations. You're officially stillupfront.
Please! I only wish my nonsense could be so random.
But in reality I'm just trying to bring people together. And if there's one thing that everyone can agree on, it's the fact that dead babies are AWESOME.
Iraqi Official: Two Missing U.S. Soldiers Found Dead
There are reports that two U.S. soldiers believed kidnapped in Iraq have been
found dead. The U.S. military says it cannot confirm the report.
23 and 25 years old. These two are children. Hardly in this world before they're dead. For lies and money.
Bush and Cheney belong in prison with Saddam.
Stories about enemy POW's with panties on their head: at least 1,000,000
Days in the news: at least 700
Stories about US POW's getting their heads cut off: 500*
days in the news: 3*
*estimates
There is no bias in the media. ::)
Nice tin foil hat. The liberal media, blah blah blah.
The U.S. claims not to torture or murder, then it goes ahead and tortures and murders. A lot.
That's why it's news.
Quote from: Diomedes on June 20, 2006, 12:45:34 PM
Nice tin foil hat. The liberal media, blah blah blah.
The U.S. claims not to torture or murder, then it goes ahead and tortures and murders. A lot.
That's why it's news.
Tin foil hats don't apply where there is fact. Perhaps you should take a look over at DU in regards to the controlled implosion of the WTC, or the missle hitting the Pentagon. Be sure to wear some sunglasses though...the glare from all that foil may blind you.
The US, as a matter of policy, does not "torture" or murder. I quote torture because some forms of interrogation are still under scrutiny. Panties on the head is not torture. Flushing the quran down a toilet is not torture. A power drill to the knees or head (a common practice in Iraq) is torture. There have been instances where individuals in the US military have broken laws under the UCMJ and they have been, and are being, prosecuted.
Quote from: Diomedes on June 20, 2006, 07:56:39 AM
23 and 25 years old. These two are children. Hardly in this world before they're dead. For lies and money.
Bush and Cheney belong in prison with Saddam.
Quote from: Diomedes on March 24, 2005, 09:45:05 AM
(anyone surprised? Farg the children..they're just little people, and people suck)
Quote from: Butchers Bill on June 20, 2006, 12:58:49 PMThe US, as a matter of policy, does not "torture" or murder.
The U.S., as a matter of fact, does torture and murder. Often enough so people like you look really stupid trying to blame it on bad apples.
Quote from: Diomedes on June 20, 2006, 01:03:23 PM
The U.S., as a matter of fact, does torture and murder. Often enough so people like you look really stupid trying to blame it on bad apples.
Name calling Dio? You have not done that for awhile...run out of ideas?
If you are speaking of torture and murder in YOUR EYES, than you are probably correct, but we disagree on what constitutes M&T.
Quote from: Butchers Bill on June 20, 2006, 12:58:49 PM
Quote from: Diomedes on June 20, 2006, 12:45:34 PM
Nice tin foil hat. The liberal media, blah blah blah.
The U.S. claims not to torture or murder, then it goes ahead and tortures and murders. A lot.
That's why it's news.
Tin foil hats don't apply where there is fact. Perhaps you should take a look over at DU in regards to the controlled implosion of the WTC, or the missle hitting the Pentagon. Be sure to wear some sunglasses though...the glare from all that foil may blind you.
The US, as a matter of policy, does not "torture" or murder. I quote torture because some forms of interrogation are still under scrutiny. Panties on the head is not torture. Flushing the quran down a toilet is not torture. A power drill to the knees or head (a common practice in Iraq) is torture. There have been instances where individuals in the US military have broken laws under the UCMJ and they have been, and are being, prosecuted.
there is a diff between physical and mental torture. and flushing down the Quran is torture to a Muslim.
Quote from: Butchers Bill on June 20, 2006, 12:36:13 PM
Stories about enemy POW's with panties on their head: at least 1,000,000
Days in the news: at least 700
Stories about US POW's getting their heads cut off: 500*
days in the news: 3*
*estimates
There is no bias in the media. ::)
missing girl in aruba in the news* infinity
wait till this report is confirmed and then see how long it stays in the news....but the fact of the matter is for the American public stomaching thousands upon thousands Iraqi civilian death is far easier than 2 American SOLDIERS dying so I am sure Bush wouldnt really want this all over anyway.
exactly....if the media was liberally biased then soldiers dying would be all over the news as it hurts the bush admin.
Quote from: ice grillin you on June 20, 2006, 01:58:41 PM
exactly....if the media was liberally biased then soldiers dying would be all over the news as it hurts the bush admin.
You mean like when Nightline spent 38 minutes reading off the name of every US Soldier killed?
The press only cares about ratings. Talking bad about the "the man" or who's in charge gets ratings and moves product.
Proof that people who buy into party politics are whiney little bitches? Republicans rule the house senate and presidency but still cry about how America is being controlled by some vast liberal conspriracy. I'm not in line with Dio's line of thinking or anything but I call bullshtein...
Signed
Proud Independant who refuses to align with either party...
You mean like when Nightline spent 38 minutes reading off the name of every US Soldier killed?
lol...ok you got me...nightline brainwashed all 14 of its viewers
respectfully reading off the names of the dead...at midnight on a news magazine program is not exactly evidence of a liberal media trying to get at the republican administration
Quote from: Butchers Bill on June 20, 2006, 02:00:44 PM
Quote from: ice grillin you on June 20, 2006, 01:58:41 PM
exactly....if the media was liberally biased then soldiers dying would be all over the news as it hurts the bush admin.
You mean like when Nightline spent 38 minutes reading off the name of every US Soldier killed?
So they don't spend enough time they spend too much time they they they.... Crap crap crappity crap.
Welcome to politics today where both sides rattle off a bunch of useless speaking points handed down by idealogs. YAY!!
Quote from: Phanatic on June 20, 2006, 02:12:03 PM
Welcome to politics today where both sides rattle off a bunch of useless speaking points handed down by idealogs. YAY!!
...and people too apathetic to take a side get to pretend they are superior because they don't care either way. YAY!
Quote from: Diomedes on June 20, 2006, 01:03:23 PM
Quote from: Butchers Bill on June 20, 2006, 12:58:49 PMThe US, as a matter of policy, does not "torture" or murder.
The U.S., as a matter of fact, does torture and murder. Often enough so people like you look really stupid trying to blame it on bad apples.
Dio is spinning his Nazi bullshtein again. What a farging coksucking loser!
Quote from: The Waco Kid on June 20, 2006, 02:21:42 PM
Quote from: Diomedes on June 20, 2006, 01:03:23 PM
Quote from: Butchers Bill on June 20, 2006, 12:58:49 PMThe US, as a matter of policy, does not "torture" or murder.
The U.S., as a matter of fact, does torture and murder. Often enough so people like you look really stupid trying to blame it on bad apples.
Dio is spinning his Nazi bullshtein again. What a farging coksucking loser!
With comments like that, Dio doesn't really have to resort to calling you names or insulting you, does he?
The old adage, "I know you are, but what am I?" has never seemed more appropriate. This is the perfect example of why you (Waco) seem like such a douche in threads like these. Regardless of what you think of Butcher's or Dio's comments, it's simple to see between the three of you (Dio, you, and Butcher's Bill) who is the real corksucking loser.
I luv me sum cork.
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/3/3d/Champagne_cork.jpg/200px-Champagne_cork.jpg)
Quote from: Butchers Bill on June 20, 2006, 02:19:22 PM
Quote from: Phanatic on June 20, 2006, 02:12:03 PM
Welcome to politics today where both sides rattle off a bunch of useless speaking points handed down by idealogs. YAY!!
...and people too apathetic to take a side get to pretend they are superior because they don't care either way. YAY!
there are the few who refuse to take a side....and are by no means apathetic just because they dont blow their cybertops on the internet whenever someone tries to bait them into it.
"It is good that war is so terrible, else we should become accustomed to it." - Robert E. Lee
"All warfare is based on deception." - Sun Tzu, The Art of War
War is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things. The decayed and degraded state of moral and patriotic feeling, which thinks that nothing is worth war, is much worse. The person who has nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing which is more important than his own personal safety, is a miserable creature and has no chance of being free unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself. - John Stuart Mill
"War is...a trinity of violence, chance, and reason." -Carl von Clausewitz
Quote from: Geowhizzer on June 20, 2006, 02:40:17 PM
"All warfare is based on deception." - Sun MoTzu, The Art of War
fixed
this animation sums it up nicely:
http://www.threeleggedlegs.com/view/?what=humans
Quote from: Wingspan on June 20, 2006, 02:34:41 PM
there are the few who refuse to take a side....and are by no means apathetic just because they dont blow their cybertops on the internet whenever someone tries to bait them into it.
No one here has blown their tops yet...Dio has not deleted his account again. ;)
Apathy is defined as:
"Lack of interest or concern, especially regarding matters of general importance or appeal; indifference."
So how is not taking a side regarding Iraq not being apathetic??
war is fun
http://www.threeleggedlegs.com/view/?what=ricochet (http://www.threeleggedlegs.com/view/?what=ricochet)
Quote from: Butchers Bill on June 20, 2006, 02:50:28 PM
So how is not taking a side regarding Iraq not being apathetic??
maybe they agree with points make by those pro war and anti war...which i, for one do. but that does not mean i dont harbor concern over the points i agree with reservation.
i fall in the middle, i have concern, and interest.
too many see it as a political division. it's not a black and white issue.
Quote from: Butchers Bill on June 20, 2006, 02:19:22 PM
Quote from: Phanatic on June 20, 2006, 02:12:03 PM
Welcome to politics today where both sides rattle off a bunch of useless speaking points handed down by idealogs. YAY!!
...and people too apathetic to take a side get to pretend they are superior because they don't care either way. YAY!
I care to pick a candidate on merit and not party affiliation. I also care to try and sift through the spin to see what the real issues are. Thanks for generalizing though. It makes my point.
Quote from: Wingspan on June 20, 2006, 03:00:23 PM
maybe they agree with points make by those pro war and anti war...which i, for one do. but that does not mean i dont harbor concern over the points i agree with reservation.
i fall in the middle, i have concern, and interest.
too many see it as a political division. it's not a black and white issue.
Thats taking a side though...and more and more Americans are taking the "middle" side. Thats why many of the "experts" believe there will be a viable third party in the 2008 elections.
Thats why many of the "experts" believe there will be a viable third party in the 2008 elections
not a chance in hell
Quote from: Butchers Bill on June 20, 2006, 03:04:39 PM
Thats taking a side though...and more and more Americans are taking the "middle" side. Thats why many of the "experts" believe there will be a viable third party in the 2008 elections.
part of the semantic game is why i dont get involved with this crap online. it's useless.
run the ball more, damnit.
i'll grow a 3rd testicle before there's a viable 3rd party.
Yeah a third side that someone will create so that we can categorize our views into a nice neat little row to be catered too or discredited. Oh joy!!
Quote from: Butchers Bill on June 20, 2006, 03:04:39 PM
Quote from: Wingspan on June 20, 2006, 03:00:23 PM
maybe they agree with points make by those pro war and anti war...which i, for one do. but that does not mean i dont harbor concern over the points i agree with reservation.
i fall in the middle, i have concern, and interest.
too many see it as a political division. it's not a black and white issue.
Thats taking a side though...and more and more Americans are taking the "middle" side. Thats why many of the "experts" believe there will be a viable third party in the 2008 elections.
I rarely resort to name-calling. But this is why you are a retard
(http://www.ap.buffalo.edu/idea/udny/Sec1images/1-12.jpg)
It's called Normal Distribution, or sometimes called the Bell Curve.
"More and more people picking the middle side" is not a new idea or statistical anomalty. The bell curve exists in almost everything, including randomness, as long as the statistical collection is significant. This also proves why MOST people fall in the middle. To accuse people of not taking a side is not only retarded, but it proves that this is not a black/white, right/left, right/wrong world. The only reason people assume there is a right-wing or a left wing majority, is because the press only needs to discuss the extremes. The majority (68.27% fall within the first standard deviation of the curve, 95.45% at the second standard deviation and 99.73% at the third standard deviation) are in the middle. It's only the asses at either end of the spectrum that are a) being broadcast because they are opinionated freaks, and 2) draw ratings. If you look at the rule of normal distribution, you find that almost no one is at the extreme left or extreme right, irregardless of what the media and talk show hosts (on both sides) will have you believe.
Demon, there you go getting all mathematical on everyone. Nerd. ;)
Quote from: Father Demon on June 23, 2006, 01:51:08 AM
I rarely resort to name-calling. But this is why you are a retard
(http://www.ap.buffalo.edu/idea/udny/Sec1images/1-12.jpg)
It's called Normal Distribution, or sometimes called the Bell Curve.
"More and more people picking the middle side" is not a new idea or statistical anomalty. The bell curve exists in almost everything, including randomness, as long as the statistical collection is significant. This also proves why MOST people fall in the middle. To accuse people of not taking a side is not only retarded, but it proves that this is not a black/white, right/left, right/wrong world. The only reason people assume there is a right-wing or a left wing majority, is because the press only needs to discuss the extremes. The majority (68.27% fall within the first standard deviation of the curve, 95.45% at the second standard deviation and 99.73% at the third standard deviation) are in the middle. It's only the asses at either end of the spectrum that are a) being broadcast because they are opinionated freaks, and 2) draw ratings. If you look at the rule of normal distribution, you find that almost no one is at the extreme left or extreme right, irregardless of what the media and talk show hosts (on both sides) will have you believe.
Did you just take a stat class kid? Perhaps you should take an english class as well because irregardless is not a word. Or didn't they teach you that in special ed?
Maybe you should consider a Political Science class too...maybe then you would see how ridiculous your post is.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/irregardless
Quote from: Butchers Bill on June 23, 2006, 09:50:16 AM
Quote from: Father Demon on June 23, 2006, 01:51:08 AM
I rarely resort to name-calling. But this is why you are a retard
(http://www.ap.buffalo.edu/idea/udny/Sec1images/1-12.jpg)
It's called Normal Distribution, or sometimes called the Bell Curve.
"More and more people picking the middle side" is not a new idea or statistical anomalty. The bell curve exists in almost everything, including randomness, as long as the statistical collection is significant. This also proves why MOST people fall in the middle. To accuse people of not taking a side is not only retarded, but it proves that this is not a black/white, right/left, right/wrong world. The only reason people assume there is a right-wing or a left wing majority, is because the press only needs to discuss the extremes. The majority (68.27% fall within the first standard deviation of the curve, 95.45% at the second standard deviation and 99.73% at the third standard deviation) are in the middle. It's only the asses at either end of the spectrum that are a) being broadcast because they are opinionated freaks, and 2) draw ratings. If you look at the rule of normal distribution, you find that almost no one is at the extreme left or extreme right, irregardless of what the media and talk show hosts (on both sides) will have you believe.
Did you just take a stat class kid? Perhaps you should take an english class as well because irregardless is not a word. Or didn't they teach you that in special ed?
Maybe you should consider a Political Science class too...maybe then you would see how ridiculous your post is.
eh-hem (http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/irregardless)
Quote from: Wingspan on June 23, 2006, 09:56:14 AM
eh-hem (http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/irregardless)
Ok, you would not even qualify for his special ed class just for pointing out your idiocy.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/irregardless
Quote
Usage Note: Irregardless is a word that many mistakenly believe to be correct usage in formal style, when in fact it is used chiefly in nonstandard speech or casual writing. Coined in the United States in the early 20th century, it has met with a blizzard of condemnation for being an improper yoking of irrespective and regardless and for the logical absurdity of combining the negative ir- prefix and -less suffix in a single term. Although one might reasonably argue that it is no different from words with redundant affixes like debone and unravel, it has been considered a blunder for decades and will probably continue to be so.
ur bitching about correct grammar on the internet. get a fargin life. luzer
Quote from: Butchers Bill on June 23, 2006, 10:03:24 AM
Quote from: Wingspan on June 23, 2006, 09:56:14 AM
eh-hem (http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/irregardless)
Ok, you would not even qualify for his special ed class just for pointing out your idiocy.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/irregardless
Quote
Usage Note: Irregardless is a word that many mistakenly believe to be correct usage in formal style, when in fact it is used chiefly in nonstandard speech or casual writing. Coined in the United States in the early 20th century, it has met with a blizzard of condemnation for being an improper yoking of irrespective and regardless and for the logical absurdity of combining the negative ir- prefix and -less suffix in a single term. Although one might reasonably argue that it is no different from words with redundant affixes like debone and unravel, it has been considered a blunder for decades and will probably continue to be so.
and from my link? although its not a surprise that an extremist such as yourself will just flat out ignore something....
irregardless of it's relevance
QuoteThe most frequently repeated remark about it is that "there is no such word." There is such a word, however. It is still used primarily in speech, although it can be found from time to time in edited prose.
has your argument gotten so weak that you nit pick the authenticity of a word? :-D
Quote from: Wingspan on June 23, 2006, 10:08:39 AM
and from my link? although its not a surprise that an extremist such as yourself will just flat out ignore something.... irregardless of it's relevance
has your argument gotten so weak that you nit pick the authenticity of a word? :-D
Go ahead and use that word at your next business meeting, and see the reaction you get. :-D
My debate with you at this particular time is this word, which you seem to be hung up on. So are you not also guilty of nit picking the authenticity of a word?
I am also not an extremist. You do not know my political stance on anything, so where do you come off as calling me an extremist? Oh, I get it, because I post on a football message board you know me right? ::)
Irrespective would have been a better word choice there.
Resume wankage...
Quote from: Butchers Bill on June 23, 2006, 10:03:24 AM
Quote from: Wingspan on June 23, 2006, 09:56:14 AM
eh-hem (http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/irregardless)
Ok, you would not even qualify for his special ed class just for pointing out your idiocy.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/irregardless
Quote
Usage Note: Irregardless is a word that many mistakenly believe to be correct usage in formal style, when in fact it is used chiefly in nonstandard speech or casual writing. Coined in the United States in the early 20th century, it has met with a blizzard of condemnation for being an improper yoking of irrespective and regardless and for the logical absurdity of combining the negative ir- prefix and -less suffix in a single term. Although one might reasonably argue that it is no different from words with redundant affixes like debone and unravel, it has been considered a blunder for decades and will probably continue to be so.
Your doing anything you can to avoid a truth that makes you uncomfortable...
I could disregard your post because you did not capitilize the K in OK but that would be petty...
Quote from: Butchers Bill on June 23, 2006, 10:18:44 AMGo ahead and use that word at your next business meeting, and see the reaction you get. :-D
my next business meeting will be my first.
Quote from: Phanatic on June 23, 2006, 10:34:40 AM
Your doing anything you can to avoid a truth that makes you uncomfortable...
I could disregard your post because you did not capitilize the K in OK but that would be petty...
Not sure what you are talking about?
Yes, pointing out a typo is petty and you should be ashamed of yourself for thinking you are clever.
you need some Hoyda dook....bad
Don't worry about using 'irregardless.' The only people who would hold it against you are half-educated prigs who would rather lord their imagined intellectual superiority over you than acknowledge that what you have said was understood.
Quote from: Diomedes on June 23, 2006, 11:24:22 AM
Don't worry about using 'irregardless.' The only people who would hold it against you are half-educated prigs who would rather lord their imagined intellectual superiority over you than acknowledge that what you have said was understood.
What about 3/4 educated prigs? I never got my master's degree.
Quote from: Jerome99RIP on June 23, 2006, 11:27:56 AMWhat about 3/4 educated prigs?
That's up to you, champ.
You're all fargin' retarded. Please continue with whatever the hell is going on here.
(http://i5.photobucket.com/albums/y171/ibescotty/rretarded.jpg)
Damn.
I wish I was here for the irregardless vs. irrespective argument. It was riveting.
To answer the question, retard:
No. I took statistics last in 1992. But I remembered enough in the last 14 years to remember that your argument was stupid. That's the basis of my point, anyway.
Now, get back to being retarded.
And, to appease rjs, I'll shut up now.
17 soldiers killed since Tuesday.
[lies]Mission Accomplished.
Bring 'em on.
"Last throes."
They'll welcome us with flowers.
"smart" bombs.
WMDs
Iraq - Al Queda connection.
Iraqi oil will pay for the reconstruction.
We're there to get Saddam out, then we can go.
We're there to establish democracy, then we can go.
The U.S. doesn't torture.
The Iraqi people are better off now.
The world is safer because the U.S. invaded Iraq.[/lies]
I wish the U.S. would re-establish the draft. Then you'd see how popular this war really is. If you think this country was in turmoil when Americans dodged the Vietnam draft, kick one off for this disaster. There aren't enough cops in all the world to round 'em up.
Quote from: Father Demon on June 25, 2006, 12:46:30 AM
Damn.
I wish I was here for the irregardless vs. irrespective argument. It was riveting.
To answer the question, retard:
No. I took statistics last in 1992. But I remembered enough in the last 14 years to remember that your argument was stupid. That's the basis of my point, anyway.
Now, get back to being retarded.
And, to appease rjs, I'll shut up now.
I reiterate, moron, that the bell curve does not apply very well to politics. Take a poli-sci class and maybe then we can have a semi-intelligent conversation.
TrollJoel, workin' the boards when he should be signing up to go to fight in Iraq. *sigh*
In other news:
At least 50,000 Iraqis have died by violence since U.S. invaded. (http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/nationworld/iraq/bal-te.deathtoll25jun25,0,5512279.story?coll=bal-nationworld-headlines)
QuoteThe toll, which is dominated by civilians but likely also includes some security forces and insurgents, is daunting: Proportionately, it is as if 600,000 Americans had been killed nationwide during the past three years. In the same period, at least 2,521 U.S. service members have been killed in Iraq.
That includes deaths caused by "smart" bombs, IEDs, Humvees running people over, corporate mercenaries shooting anyone in their way, rampant street violence, assasinations by insurgents, by-standers caught in the cross fire, scared U.S. troops killing anyone comes anywhere near a checkpoint, family feuds, etc.
QuoteThe Health Ministry gathers numbers from hospitals in the capital and the outlying provinces. If a victim dies at the hospital or arrives dead, medical officials there will issue a death certificate. Relatives will claim the body directly from the hospital and arrange for a speedy burial according to Muslim beliefs.
If the morgue receives a body - usually those which are deemed suspicious deaths - officials there issue the death certificate.
Health Ministry officials said that because death certificates are issued and counted separately, the two data sets are not overlapping.
The Baghdad morgue received 30,204 bodies from 2003 through mid-2006, while the Health Ministry said it had documented 18,933 deaths from what were described as military clashes and terrorist attacks between April 5, 2004, and June 1, 2006. Taken together, the violent death toll reaches 49,137. However, samples obtained from local health departments in other provinces show an undercount that brings the total number well beyond 50,000.
The documented cases show a country descending further into violence.
At the Baghdad morgue, the vast majority of victims have been shot execution-style. Many show signs of torture - drill holes, burns, missing eyes and limbs, officials there say. Others have been strangled, beheaded, stabbed or beaten.
The morgue records show a predominantly civilian toll; the hospital records gathered by the Health Ministry do not distinguish among civilians, combatants and security forces.
But Health Ministry records do differentiate among causes of death. Almost 75 percent of those who died violently were killed in what were classified as "terrorist acts," typically bombings, the records show. The other 25 percent were killed in what were classified as "military clashes." A health official described the victims as "innocent bystanders," many of them shot by Iraqi or American troops, caught in crossfire or shot accidentally at checkpoints. There are few demarcations or front lines in Iraq, and some of the dead might have been insurgents or militia members.
Cross this figure against the count at www.iraqbodycount.com (which does not report insurgent deaths) and you get
at least 40k civilians dead by violence. George Bush's war has made the Saddam years look like the Halcyon days of old. If the U.S. had secured the peace--as was their graven duty--the innocent casualties would be much, much fewer. But they completely failed at/ignored this responsibility. The result is that the whole country is essentially the Wild, Wild Middle East, where the law men survive only because the criminals haven't gotten to them yet. You can just murder someone in the street and basically no one will stop you, pursue you, or investigate what happened afterwards.
Of course, this figure says nothing of those refugees who died because of disease, starvation, exposure.
And of course, of course, most of you don't give a shtein about Iraqi civilians. Hell, the only reason many of you even know how many U.S. soldiers have been killed is this thread. You're welcome.
There was a good article in Time the other week about AMZ and how before he was killed he was more obssessed with killing Iraqi civilians than American military. His belief was that muslims that didn't follow his line of thinking were worse than non-believers. I don't know if any of you have seen the cover of that magazine but it was awesome, it had AMZ on the cover with a big red X on his face.
QuoteJune 29, 2006
Iraq War Ends Silently for One American Soldier
By DEXTER FILKINS
RAMADI, Iraq, June 28 — A soldier was dead, and it was time for him to go home.
The doors to the little morgue swung open, and six soldiers stepped outside carrying a long black bag zippered at the top.
About 60 soldiers were waiting to say goodbye. They had gathered in the sand outside this morgue at Camp Ramadi, an Army base in Anbar Province, now the most lethal of Iraqi places.
Inside the bag was Sgt. Terry Michael Lisk, 26, of Zion, Ill., killed a few hours before.
In the darkness, the bag was barely visible. A line of blue chemical lights marked the way to the landing strip not far away.
Everyone saluted, even the wounded man on a stretcher. No one said a word.
Sergeant Lisk had been standing near an intersection in downtown Ramadi on Monday morning when a 120-millimeter mortar shell, fired by guerrillas, landed about 30 paces away. The exploding shell flung a chunk of steel into the right side of his chest just beneath his arm. He stopped breathing and died a few minutes later.
The pallbearers lifted Sergeant Lisk into the back of an ambulance, a truck marked by a large red cross, and fell in with the others walking silently behind it as it crept through the sand toward the landing zone. The blue lights showed the way.
From a distance came the sound of a helicopter.
Death comes often to the soldiers and marines who are fighting in Anbar Province, which is roughly the size of Louisiana and is the most intractable region in Iraq. Almost every day, an American soldier is killed somewhere in Anbar — in Ramadi, in Haditha, in Falluja, by a sniper, by a roadside bomb, or as with Sergeant Lisk, by a mortar shell. In the first 27 days of June, 27 soldiers and marines were killed here. In small ways, the military tries to ensure that individual soldiers like Sergeant Lisk are not forgotten in the plenitude of death.
One way is to say goodbye to the body of a fallen comrade as it leaves for the United States. Here in Anbar, American bodies are taken first by helicopter to Camp Anaconda, the big logistical base north of Baghdad, and then on to the United States. Most helicopter traffic in Anbar, for security reasons, takes place at night. Hence the darkness.
In the minutes after the mortar shell exploded, everyone hoped that Sergeant Lisk would live. Although he was not breathing, the medics got to him right away, and the hospital was not far.
"What's his name?" asked Col. Sean MacFarland, the commander of the 4,000-soldier First Brigade.
"Lisk, sir," someone replied.
"If he can be saved, they'll save him," said Colonel MacFarland, who had been only a few yards away in an armored personnel carrier when the mortar shell landed.
About 10 minutes later, the word came.
"He's dead," Colonel MacFarland said.
Whenever a soldier dies, in Iraq or anywhere else, a wave of uneasiness — fear, revulsion, guilt, sadness — ripples through the survivors. It could be felt on Monday, even when the fighting was still going on.
"He was my best friend," Specialist Allan Sammons said, his lower lip shaking. "That's all I can say. I'm kind of shaken up."
Another soldier asked, "You want to take a break?"
Specialist Sammons said, "I'll be fine," his lip still shaking.
Sergeant Lisk's friends and superiors recalled a man who had risen from a hard childhood to become someone whom they counted on for cheer in a grim and uncertain place.
"He was a special kid," Specialist Sammons said. "He came from a broken home. I think he was divorced. I'm worried that it might be hard to find someone."
He said he would write a letter to the family — to whom it was not clear just yet.
Hours later, at the landing zone at Camp Ramadi, the helicopter descended. Without lights, in the darkness, it was just a grayish glow. With its engines still whirring, it lowered its back door.
The six soldiers walked out to the chopper and lifted Sergeant Lisk's body into it. The door went back up. The helicopter flew away.
The soldiers saluted a final time.
In the darkness, as the sound of the helicopter faded, Colonel MacFarland addressed his soldiers.
"I don't know if this war is worth the life of Terry Lisk, or 10 soldiers, or 2,500 soldiers like him," Colonel MacFarland told his forces. "What I do know is that he did not die alone. He was surrounded by friends.
"A Greek philosopher said that only the dead have seen the end of war," the colonel said. "Only Terry Lisk has seen the end of this war."
The soldiers turned and walked back to their barracks in the darkness. No one said a word.
From today's NYT.
The count for U.S. soldiers killed is now 2,560. Have a nice weekend.
Thanks statboy.
pretty sad and disturbing article....i guess the liberal media coverage of the war is being replaced by liberal troop coverage of the war
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/07/26/AR2006072601666_pf.html
i cant find it online but reporter jeffery gettleman writes a fantastic and heartbreaking piece in GQ magazine regarding the botched reconstruction of iraq after several extended stays in baghdad
"the city of a million ways to die"
buy the magazine...with justin timberlake on the cover...its more than worth it
2,582 U.S. Soldiers killed in Iraq so far.
Top generals say Iraq is on the brink of civil war.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060803/ap_on_go_co/us_iraq_15
And Bush will go right on ignoring them just like he ignores scientists in his own administration who scream about global warming, stem cell research, etc., etc...
Wake me up when it's over...
Many voters have tired of the 3-year-old war, which has cost more than 2,500 U.S. lives and more than a quarter trillion taxpayer dollars.
unreal.
Quote from: Phanatic on August 03, 2006, 12:23:55 PM
Top generals say Iraq is on the brink of civil war.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060803/ap_on_go_co/us_iraq_15
This whole civil war thing cracks me up. I know, let's ignore the real problem, that there is absolutely no control over the situation in Iraq, and debate whether it's an "insurgency" or a "civil war". Yeah, solving the semantics will make all the war go away. iceholes.
when will they realize that those people over there are completely insane and nobody but them can control thier own gov't? we are seriously pissing in the wind and more lives will continue to fall for a VERY long time IMO.
Most of them are not insane. Sure there are a few loonies out there (like Bin Laden) but most of them think they are fighting a war in God's honor. Much like Bush does (or claims to). That dismissive attitude, shared by most Westerners, is a huge part of the problem. That attitude says Israel is perfectly within it's rights to kill women and children in Lebanon because Hezbollah might be in the vicinity.
Attitudes on both sides need to be changed for this to end effectively. The combat is just filling the time until that can happen, or the first nuke is dropped.
Thinking you're fighting a war in God's name = insane, dude.
Fighting a war for independence, territory, or oil or other natural resources is one thing, but warring in the name of God is absurd.
I'm pretty sure I read that in some holy book once.
Sure there are a few loonies out there (like Bin Laden) but most of them think they are fighting a war in God's honor. Much like Bush does (or claims to). That dismissive attitude, shared by most Westerners, is a huge part of the problem.
in a general sense this is very true
the specific problem in iraq right now is thinking that everyone in iraq is a terrorist from iran....a lot of the people over there are fighting america because we took over their country....much in the same way we would expect out citizens to act if mexico invaded texas
the admin would have you believe that the everyman in iraq is thrilled to death over us being there and that a small amount of insurgents/terrorists are ruining it for the other 99% of the country
Most Americans wouldn't do a damn thing if Mexico invaded Texas.
I think initially there were many that were thrilled to have us there, but now with the continued insurgency and all of the collateral damage they have grown sick of it. I can't blame them at all.
Quote from: General_Failure on August 03, 2006, 01:42:45 PM
Most Americans wouldn't do a damn thing if Mexico invaded Texas.
Why would we care? It's not like Texas is a part of America anyway.
Well the 'insurgency' isn't even about attacking Americans at this point. Sure there is that foreign element but the civil war aspect comes from Sheites attacking Suni's (ala dragging people out of their cars and killing anyone with a Suni ID card) and Suni's attacking the Sheites in kind. Heck they are attacking each others holiest sites to insite riots and such. Attacking Americans is just an added bonus for some and adds to the mayhem.
Wankers in charge thought this was going to be like rebuilding Japan or Germany not realizing that this territory has some 1000 year old hatred brewing that one brutal dictator could never eliminate. Patriotic do gooder America isn't going to solve it either.
Political idiots have put the troops into position where only politics can win the 'war' in Iraq. Not something the military has anything to do with and another example of how not to utilize the US military.
Quote from: General_Failure on August 03, 2006, 01:42:45 PM
Most Americans wouldn't do a damn thing if Mexico invaded Texas.
I would send the Mexican Army some money. Paypal, hombre.
Quote from: Diomedes on August 03, 2006, 02:02:42 PM
Quote from: General_Failure on August 03, 2006, 01:42:45 PM
Most Americans wouldn't do a damn thing if Mexico invaded Texas.
I would send the Mexican Army some money. Paypal, hombre.
I nominate this for "Post of the Year".
Quote from: General_Failure on August 03, 2006, 01:42:45 PM
Most Americans wouldn't do a damn thing if Mexico invaded Texas.
Haven't they already?
They've asked the invaders to work on their homes. Construction and gardening, mostly.
2,632
2,666
22 killed already this month.
67 last month.
the only way to truly support the troops is to end the invasion and bring the survivors home.
Great job stat boy. Keep up the useless work!
It's useless to take note that U.S. troops are dying in Iraq? At about three per day right now? Okay.
Useless would be trying to convince someone like you that Iraqi civilians matter.
Quote from: Second Coming on September 08, 2006, 10:15:27 AM
Great job stat boy. Keep up the useless work!
No shtein. It doesn't matter if you are a supporter of the war or not. farging people like you just turn a blind eye to it and tow the party line, "We can't pull out and/or lose this war, we have to stay until it's finished." While completely ignoring the cost.
so you guys would rather leave the place as is, after we already farged it up. leave all that valuable oil to the terrorists? leave it up to the iraq govern. *cough* to control everything over there? im not a supporter of the war, but supporting the withdrawl of our troops from there is almost as much of a crime to humanity than of the war itself. we have to clean up what we started, no other option. quit yer bitching cause its not going to happen.
I never said I was down for the withdrawl of all forces. I never said I thought it was a good idea to walk away from the mess we've made. What I was trying to imply is that if you are behind staying and finishing the job, but consider the cost useless information, you are a jackass.
Quote from: Diomedes on September 08, 2006, 09:43:20 AM
the only way to truly support the troops is to end the invasion and bring the survivors home.
I know from personal experience that 95% of the troops disagree with you.
Sure you do.
Three words.
Tactical Nuclear Strike.
Pull the troops out. Flatten the entire region. Drink a cocktail.
Quote from: Diomedes on September 08, 2006, 11:49:03 AM
Sure you do.
Well you see, unlike you I do not hate the the troops, and I have had the great honor to serve in our armed forces...an organization you loathe. I have also been around military folks my entire life (lived on bases, near bases and served), something you would never dare "lower" yourself to.
So yes, I do.
You're both wrong. There.
Quote from: PhillyPhaninDC on September 08, 2006, 10:52:28 AM
I never said I was down for the withdrawl of all forces. I never said I thought it was a good idea to walk away from the mess we've made. What I was trying to imply is that if you are behind staying and finishing the job, but consider the cost useless information, you are a jackass.
Actually, i don't like the fact that our troops are being killed. My post was merely intended to piss off idiots like you. I love controversy!!
The problem I see there is that it isn't just Al Qaeda your fighting there. Your fighting 1000 year old tribal grudges and religious differences. They are killing each other in the name of Shia, Sunni or by who sold bad cheese on top of the Al Qaeda thing. If you pull out they'll just escalate the killing of each other and probably have themselves a nice all out civil war.
If you really care for the Iraqi civilians then pulling out guarantees that more of them die. Staying there guarantees more troops die.
Of course I'm trying to figure out what is wrong with letting them just have at each other aside from trashing our bull shtein do good image.
Making this issue black or white is the real problem when everything is just shades of grey.
Quote from: Second Coming on September 08, 2006, 12:15:19 PM
Actually, i don't like the fact that our troops are being killed. My post was merely intended to piss off idiots like you. I love controversy!!
But you obviously take issue with someone pointing out they are in fact people, kids mostly, that are dying. Makes sense.
Quote from: PhillyPhaninDC on September 08, 2006, 10:52:28 AM
I never said I was down for the withdrawl of all forces. I never said I thought it was a good idea to walk away from the mess we've made. What I was trying to imply is that if you are behind staying and finishing the job, but consider the cost useless information, you are a jackass.
the cost! the cost! what we should be saving our pennies. prez. bush should of thought about alot of things including the cost when that jackass went in there. he didn't. at this point were screwed, we're already in debt, its not going to get better only worse. thank the administration for this. no matter what the cost we have to stay. if we pull out, then we wasted everything. does that make any sense? it does to me. i'd rather see us pay more and try to get things remotely right over there than to just pull out and to have done it all for nothing.
Quote from: mussa on September 08, 2006, 12:24:56 PM
the cost! the cost! what we should be saving our pennies. prez. bush should of thought about alot of things including the cost when that jackass went in there. he didn't. at this point were screwed, we're already in debt, its not going to get better only worse. thank the administration for this. no matter what the cost we have to stay. if we pull out, then we wasted everything. does that make any sense? it does to me. i'd rather see us pay more and try to get things remotely right over there than to just pull out and to have done it all for nothing.
By cost I was refering to was human life. Not pennies. But you must have known that.
I can't begin to explain how much it angers me when I hear people spouting off about how the we have to stay no matter the "cost" (people's lives, time, money, etc.). Have it impact your life. A brother's, sister's, parent's, or friend's life ending or being destroyed by it. Waking up with nightmares, having panic attacks when walking into dark rooms, etc., then say it is worth the cost.
nobody forces you to join the military these days you know. its a shame they have to go through this, im not argueing that. ive read books about NAM, Desert Storm and the current, its horrible what the troops and civilians alike have to go through. but one thing wil never change in human nature and thats greed, money and power. there will always be conflict for power and religion will almost always be behind it also.
Eventually the Iraqis have to stand up and fight for themselves, and we should (privately) tell them on "x" date we are leaving and you are on your own. Continue to provide air support, but no more ground troops after the "x" date.
ya know thats sounds like a good idea, but honestly i don't think it is ever going to work over there. history proves it. if that area wasn't rich in religion and oil. we wouldn't be there, nor would anyone else. it would be like africa. no resources and a whole lot of death, disease and genocide.
Quote from: Butchers Bill on September 08, 2006, 12:37:06 PM
Eventually the Iraqis have to stand up and fight for themselves, and we should (privately) tell them on "x" date we are leaving and you are on your own. Continue to provide air support, but no more ground troops after the "x" date.
They'll stand up and fight for themselves. Unfortunatly it will be against each other.
I hate you all.
2,677 is the current count. In the past 14 days, 34 U.S. military have died and dozens have been injured.
If you resent being reminded, screw you.
(http://d.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/p/uc/20060912/str060911.gif)
2,700 (http://icasualties.org/oif/)
Have a nice day.
Quote from: Diomedes on September 23, 2006, 02:46:52 PM
2,700 (http://icasualties.org/oif/)
Have a nice day.
wOOt!
::)
This thread truly gets the point across to the government and this definitely helps the troops you care so much about.
Please continue.
In the last 35 day, 94 U.S. Soldiers have been killed in Iraq. 20 in the last five days.
http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/europe/10/13/lloyd.inquest/index.html
QuoteU.S. forces 'killed UK reporter'
OXFORD, England (CNN) -- A coroner ruled on Friday that a British journalist who died in Iraq at the start of the war was unlawfully killed by American forces.
Lloyd, a correspondent with the British TV network ITN , was killed outside Basra in southern Iraq in March 2003.
Oxfordshire Assistant Deputy Coroner Andrew Walker said he'll be writing the director of public prosecutions to seek to bring the perpetrators to justice.
"Terry Lloyd died following a gunshot wound to the head. The evidence this bullet was fired by the Americans is overwhelming," Walker said.
Lebanese interpreter Hussein Osman also was killed in the ITN crew, and cameraman Fred Nerac remains missing. ITN cameraman Daniel Demoustier survived.
Lloyd -- who was aged 50 -- was shot in the back during U.S. and Iraqi crossfire and was apparently shot by U.S. forces when he was taken away in a minibus for treatment.
"There is no doubt that the minibus presented no threat to the American forces. There is no doubt it was an unlawful act of fire upon the minibus," Walker said.
There were statements from U.S. military officers about the incident, but the coroner said "it was and is essential they attend and it is not satisfactory to have their statements read in court."
Lloyd's family members denounced the action and want justice.
Chelsea Lloyd, Terry Lloyd's daughter, urged after the inquest that the soldiers and their commanding officers be brought to justice.
"They did not come to this inquest to explain their actions. Let them now do so in our criminal courts where they are guaranteed to get a fair trial."
She said the "value of the inquest has been demonstrated."
"Until now we were unaware that my father was able to stand and walk to a makeshift ambulance after being shot once by an Iraqi bullet. The man who stopped to help my father was an ordinary Iraqi whose intentions were to take him and other wounded to a nearby hospital.
"After helping my father into his minibus the evidence shows that the vehicle whilst driving the wounded away was fired on by U.S. forces, and that one bullet entered my father's head after passing through the vehicle, and it was this American bullet which killed him."
A statement read by an attorney for Lloyd's widow, Lynn, said the court established that the "circumstances of his death from an American bullet whilst being ferried to hospital is a very serious war crime" and that the Marines should now stand trial.
"The evidence of how Terry Lloyd was unlawfully killed has shown that this was not, I wish to stress, a friendly fire blue on blue incident or a crossfire incident. It was a despicable, deliberate, vengeful act, particularly as it came many minutes after the end of the initial exchanges in which Mr. Lloyd had been hit by an Iraqi bullet."
Her statement said "U.S. forces appeared to have allowed their soldiers to behave like trigger-happy cowboys in an area in which there were civilians traveling on a highway, both Iraqi and European."
In other news, through 13 days of October 2006, 45 U.S. troops have been killed in Iraq. The current total is 2,758.
I read that article this AM too. Since when is a coronor an expert in the rules of war? The US troops, in a war zone, shot the shtein out of an unmarked van they considered a threat.
An unmarked van into which an injured civilian who had been trapped in their crossfire had just climbed into...and which was leaving the scene of the battle.
Soldiers don't get to shoot indiscriminately. You can't simply give them a pass to fire at will. As we have seen however, that is bascially what's going on. U.S. soldiers and mercenaries are shooting first and asking questions later, if at all.
Makes for great PR.
Quote from: Diomedes on October 13, 2006, 10:52:35 AM
An unmarked van into which an injured civilian who had been trapped in their crossfire had just climbed into...and which was leaving the scene of the battle.
Soldiers don't get to shoot indiscriminately. You can't simply give them a pass to fire at will. As we have seen however, that is bascially what's going on. U.S. soldiers and mercenaries are shooting first and asking questions later, if at all.
Agree about the indiscriminate shooting, but who gets to decide what is indiscriminate? Mai Lai...clear cut case...this is not such a case. In urban warfare, its nearly impossible to determine.
There is too much missing info to make a reasonable desicion about this incident. You are assuming (the article does not even mention this) that the US troops witnessed these civilians enter the van. There does not seem to be any evidence of that yet. Even if there was, we all know that Muslim extremists would never use civilians to mask an attack...never.
I like RJS's idea....Make Glass
Quote from: Butchers Bill on October 13, 2006, 10:59:50 AM
Quote from: Diomedes on October 13, 2006, 10:52:35 AM
An unmarked van into which an injured civilian who had been trapped in their crossfire had just climbed into...and which was leaving the scene of the battle.
Soldiers don't get to shoot indiscriminately. You can't simply give them a pass to fire at will. As we have seen however, that is bascially what's going on. U.S. soldiers and mercenaries are shooting first and asking questions later, if at all.
Agree about the indiscriminate shooting, but who gets to decide what is indiscriminate? Mai Lai...clear cut case...this is not such a case. In urban warfare, its nearly impossible to determine.
There is too much missing info to make a reasonable desicion about this incident. You are assuming (the article does not even mention this) that the US troops witnessed these civilians enter the van. There does not seem to be any evidence of that yet. Even if there was, we all know that Muslim extremists would never use civilians to mask an attack...never.
Of course this is the easy cop-out to avoid looking at yourselves... and wonder if there is anything wrong with doctrine and training of US troops (or at least significant parts of them)... What is the list now?
Canadians in Afghanistan bombed by US fighters. Numerous wedding parties bombed. Al Jazeera TV station fired at. Civilian, and marked as such, convoy strafed by A-10. British airplanes returning from mission shot down by US missile battery. The whole Jessica Lynch partially staged operation. The operations in the Sunni triangle (Najaf and the like) where the US military has tried to suppress any images coming out... those that did come out contracdicted what the Pentagon claimed.
If others operating both in Iraq and Afghanistan (think of Canadians, British, Dutch, Germans, French etc) are consciously trying to distance themselves from the US and US troops as much as possible, that should be an indication that there might be some serious problems with US doctrine and training....
Civilians and innocents die in every war, and the fact is fewer civilians and friendlies have died at the hands of US troops in this conflict than any other major conflict in our history.
Are their islated incidient of "cowboyism" surely...and those soldiers get arrested and punished. Is it widespread and part of US military doctrine? Surely not.
The US has, by far, the best trained military in the world and to go great lengths to limit civilian casualties.
Quote from: Butchers Bill on October 13, 2006, 02:12:41 PM
The US has, by far, the best trained military in the world and to go great lengths to limit civilian casualties.
First of all I will disagree with the first part... the US has the largest and most powerful military (looking at pure firepower, but best trained, no. That is for the smaller armies (sheer size makes it impossible, especially if you see where the money goes)... let alone (as far as training goes) for the type of mission that is required of it in Iraq and Afghanistan...
BTW, those are observations from experienced soldiers (one the NSA guy assigned to the unit which captured Saddam, one a Dutch soldier who has served in Bosnia, Iraq and Kosovo and will go to Afghanistan in a few weeks/months) and the general comments made by European military analysts and establishment even BEFORE GW decided to invade Iraq. And comments reiterated by others who observed the way US troops operated in Iraq (and to a lesser degree in Afghanistan).
Simply put, the US military is insufficiently trained to fight the type fo conflicts it is fighting now (so yes, this means there is a problem with doctrine). With disastrous results, in particular in Afghanistan. The far too few troops deployed, the (lack of) cultural awareness let alone the propaganda and misinformation (I would say outright lies) spewed by the US administration and media before the Iraq invasion, and even to this day, only help to make this problem much much worse...
If there are elements within Iraq that are saying before the war: "we would rather have Israel doing the liberating then the US", something is seriously wrong...
Or, as someone generalized it even before the war in Iraq: "The US military is good at flattening things with overhwelming power, but not much more..."
And unfortunately he has been proven right so far. And mind you, I do not blame so much the local grunt on the ground (in fact I pity them for having been dumped in this mess), as I do blame the US administration, the cowards on Capitol Hill (who followed Bush like sheep by and large) and elements within the Pentagon and intelligence community. And for good measure, Tony Blair and my own prime minister are a bunch of cowards and should be tried as well...
And as far as limiting civilian casualties goes, I would not even be that sure either (something that goes for all Western militaries BTW). They do in front of the camera (hence a very intense campaign to censor what comes out (specifically one of the goals of the "embedded reporter" phenomenon)), and some of the rules of engagements they have... except that in a number of cases the rules of engagement themselves are the problem (see checkpoints), especially if you want to win the hearts and minds of people, and in numerous cases images and reports that have come out despite all attempts to keep silent suggest otherwise (former Yugoslavia, Najaf, the Operation Desert Storm)....
im not in the military by any means but i would say when Iraq was invaded the US mil didnt have urban training other than select schools, and branches of the miltary. Its become a focus since the invasion to focus on Door to Door/Street/City battles.
I think we can all agree that this situation is completely awesome in every way. I mean seriously. I'm giddy just thinking about the inevitable result of this 'war'. Poverty and civil war in the battleground countries. Villification of the United States by amajority of the world. The panicky election of an all-democratic congress and a Democratic President. The increase of taxes and government programs to help the helpless. A perception that our country has gone soft in certain areas. Prompting an extension of the 'War on Terror' just to prove that Democrats can fight bad guys too. A narrow re-election of the Democratic President. A complete rift in public opinion with the majority starting to side with conservatives who feed off of the fact that the 'War on Terror' is inept in every way. Republicans will get voted into office in a landslide and promptly go to work on 'weeding out the enemy'. Buildings destroyed by mysterious 'enemy combatants'. Cameras are installed. Phones are tapped. And then, about 30 years after it was predicted to happen, we will finally have 1984.
I love this shtein.
QuoteSimply put, the US military is insufficiently trained to fight the type fo conflicts it is fighting now
This is very true. The US military is the best trained military, size and all, for a certain type of war and this isn't it. I would say that no matter how well trained a military is nothing really works when it comes down to this kind of deception amongst a populace determined to kill each other and anyone who gets in the way. Add to that foreign fighters only interested in stirring things up and no one can win. This police action just might go down as the a 2nd worst military failure because of politics in US history. That isn't the fault of the US military and the job they are trying to do. They've been put into an impossible situation and do their best to die for nothing every damn day.
As for Afghanistan it is fun to say the US alone is losing that battle but well trained smaller armies from Europe are now fighting in southern Afghanistan under the NATO banner.
Quote from: Phanatic on October 13, 2006, 04:39:15 PM
QuoteSimply put, the US military is insufficiently trained to fight the type fo conflicts it is fighting now
This is very true. The US military is the best trained military, size and all, for a certain type of war and this isn't it. I would say that no matter how well trained a military is nothing really works when it comes down to this kind of deception amongst a populace determined to kill each other and anyone who gets in the way. Add to that foreign fighters only interested in stirring things up and no one can win. This police action just might go down as the a 2nd worst military failure because of politics in US history.
One would not be able to completely stop it... but one could bring it down a lot and take it from there... The Brits have been far more successful, and so have a few units in the North of Iraq who ran things like the British and Dutch were doing, and whoms commander had a private library of books and evaluations (including American post-Vietnam) about how to deal with this kind of conflict... within a short while, the situation in their area did get a LOT better... for the record, this unit was violating a whole lot of orders and directives sent from Baghdad in adopting this policy.
Quote from: Phanatic
That isn't the fault of the US military and the job they are trying to do. They've been put into an impossible situation and do their best to die for nothing every damn day.
Yes and no. Is it the fault of "Joe-grunt"? By and large NO. The problem is the upper establishment there, parts of the Pentagon (which are all part of the military) and above all this administration and the sheep on Capitol Hill.
Quote from: Phanatic
As for Afghanistan it is fun to say the US alone is losing that battle but well trained smaller armies from Europe are now fighting in southern Afghanistan under the NATO banner.
Yup... and they have about 4 months to win or lose this fight (by winning the hearts and minds of the local populace), and the way things are looking now, it will be a very close run thing. And the politico's (in Europe but above all in the US) make things very very difficult.
While I agree with some of the points that have been made here, I have to disagree about the training. Currently (at least in the Army) they are trained about as good as they can be for this type of conflict. MOUT (Military Operations Urban Terrain) training is an integral part of training in today's Army. It is even done at the basic training level. Though I do agree that no matter what is done, it is still very difficult to come out on top.
After listening to some comentary from Iraq I have to draw a different conclusion. When the US military is patrolling an area it is somewhat safer. The problem in Iraq now is that they are trying to turn things over to Iraqi forces. Forces infaltrated by this or that influence making a true Iraqi police force difficult. The killings today were in an Iraqi contolled zone until they asked the US to come in and help them out, basically taking over the area for them. There is the real problem. Disbanding the Iraqi military at the begining of this thing is haunting this effort. The US military is trying to create a legitimate local force and it isn't working. There are stories of US military men embedded with Iraqi's for training wondering if they'd make it through the night or get their throats cut. These are the troops they are trying to put on the street and when they take over an area it is sometimes a disaster. The US forces are always there to back them up but do not intervene until asked. What a mess...
72 U.S. soldiers have died so far this month, more than in any full calendar month since April '06. With 12 days left, October '06 is shaping up to be one of the worst for U.S. forces since Bush/Cheney invaded Iraq in March '03.
(http://photomatt.net/dropbox/2004/04/bush-small.jpg)
A mosaic made of pictures of military killed in action in Iraq.
Note: This is not a commentary or opinion by me. I'm pro military action. I just thought the picture was interesting.
Bush: I won't change strategy in Iraq (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20061020/ap_on_go_pr_wh/us_iraq)
Rumsfeld: Iraq must take over security (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20061021/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/rumsfeld_4)
At 78 deaths, Oct. '06 has produced the highest death count since November 2005 (84). At the current daily average (within Oct.) of just under four deaths, that benchmark is a lock to be surpassed. In fact, at this rate there is a very high chance that this month's body count will surpass Oct. '05 (96), which was the fourth deadliest month in the whole war.
Deadliest months:
1 Nov-04 137
2 Apr-04 135
3 Jan-05 107
4 Oct-05 96
5 Aug-05 85
6 Nov-05 84
7 Nov-03 82
8 May-05 80
9 Sep-04 80
10 May-04 80
11 Oct-06 78 - 10 days left
ten deadliest months in Iraq for U.S. soldiers since invasion (Mar '03)
1 Nov-04 137
2 Apr-04 135
3 Jan-05 107
4 Oct-05 96
5 Oct-06 87 - 8 days left
6 Aug-05 85
7 Nov-05 84
8 Nov-03 82
9 May-05 80
10 Sep-04 80
Total all U.S. military deaths in Iraq: 2,800
It's a small price to pay for the inevitable $3/gallon of gas. Which reminds me, there's only a couple weeks left until the elections. I better stock up on gas now while I can still get it for less than two and a quarter.
Quote"We're winning and we will win, unless we leave before the job is done," he said.
- Left without comment -
Quote from: Sgt PSN on October 24, 2006, 01:05:58 PM
It's a small price to pay for the inevitable $6/gallon of gas. Which reminds me, there's only a couple weeks left until the elections. I better stock up on gas now while I can still get it for less than two and a quarter.
Eventually.
ten deadliest months in Iraq for U.S. soldiers since invasion (Mar '03).
1 Nov-04 137
2 Apr-04 135
3 Jan-05 107
4 Oct-06 97 - 4 days left
5 Oct-05 96
6 Aug-05 85
7 Nov-05 84
8 Nov-03 82
9 May-05 80
10 Sep-04 80
Total all U.S. military deaths in Iraq: 2,810
I don't think they've got what it takes to move into the top three.
Traitor.
Rat on a sinking ship. My ticket is booked for 11/14.
Final count for October '06 looks to be 105. That means it was the fourth most deadly to date, only two deaths behind the third most deadly.
Meanwhile, in two days of November, 8 have been killed. Odds on November challenging for top five?
RUMSFELD TO STEP DOWN (http://www.breitbart.com/news/2006/11/08/D8L91ID02.html)
Ding dong, the witch is dead!
Holy shtein! Great news. :yay
oh, that it were he was truly dead, not just politically. evil man.
Bob Gates, ex-CIA director will reportedly replace Rummy...
(http://www.sleep-ins.com/props/ac/Rumsfeld-Hussein.jpg)
There's room for two in that cell.
"There's room for two on that hanging platform"
Rumsfeld is a shining example of the arrogance and incompetence of the Bush Administration.
Good riddance you steaming pile of horseshtein.
Gates was one of the Iran-Contra crooks who got off scot free.
...and yet can he possibly NOT be an improvement over Rumsfeld?
Quote from: Diomedes on November 08, 2006, 02:08:01 PM
Gates was one of the Iran-Contra crooks who got off scot free.
So we've traded one corrupt ass bag for another? Shocking!
Quote from: Diomedes on November 08, 2006, 02:08:01 PM
Gates was one of the Iran-Contra crooks who got off scot free.
Not only that but he's a family friend of the Bushes and has been honing his skills as the president of some college for the past several years. QUALIFICATIONS GALORE!
The final count for October was 105. 24 have perished so far in November. Total count is 2,842.
In other news, the Iraqi health minister is saying 150,000 civilian casualties since the U.S. invasion.
http://abcnews.go.com/International/IraqCoverage/wireStory?id=2641908
Muslims claim they're winning the war; vow to bomb White House (http://www.breitbart.com/news/2006/11/10/D8LAC4OG1.html)
Ugh.
Well, they ARE winning the war.
53 U.S. Casualties so far in November, which is a much lower per day rate than last month: 2.44 per day vs. 3.55 per day. 2,873 total to date.
Iraq itself is in total civil war...outright chaos. Mission Accomplished indeed.
George W. Bush's war on Iraq has now surpassed WWII in length of involvement, making it the fifth longest war in U.S. history. Soon, it will eclipse the Civil War for the fourth longest.
Vietnam War ...... 8 years, 5 months
Revolutionary War ......... 6 years, 9 months
Afghanistan ........... 5 years, 1 month
Civil War ......... 4 years
Iraq ............ 3 years, 8 months
WWII ............... 3 years, 8 months
Korean War ........ 3 years, 1 month
War of 1812 ......... 2 years, 6 months
U.S.-Mexico War ............ 1 year, 10 months
WWI ............ 1 year, 7 months
Spanish American War ............ 8 months
Persian Gulf War .......... 1.5 months
The thing is you can't really compare wars, not one of those wars that was listed is like this one at all. Vietnam is the only one with similarities as far as fighting goes. The others were force on force.
You can't compare WWII to the Revolutionary war, either. It's not a matter of comparison..more a matter of perspective.
The fact is that the U.S. is currently engaged in two wars at once, both of which have been going on for a long time, neither of which show any prospect of ever ending.
It's worth noting.
37 U.S. soldiers dead in December in Iraq so far. 8 days.
Closing in on 3000 deaths in Iraq (http://www.yahoo.com/s/466217)
[Voters]Get out of Iraq[/Voters]
[Bush]Send more troops[/Bush]
At least Bush had an exit strategy in Vietnam.
Quote from: Diomedes on December 22, 2006, 06:34:47 PM
[Voters]Get out of Iraq[/Voters]
[Bush]Send more troops[/Bush]
I got word from a couple of my buddies that that's exactly what they're doing after the holidays.
I hope the next assclown who takes office has a better plan of getting us out of a foreign country we had no business entering the in first place than Nixon did.
Quote from: Jerome99RIP on December 22, 2006, 07:32:02 PM
I hope the next assclown who takes office has a better plan of getting us out of a foreign country we had no business entering the in first place than Nixon did.
There is no "good" way out, just like there wasn't in Vietnam. Nixon's plan was actually brilliant and worked, right up until Watergate. If not for Watergate, North Vietnam would not have violated the peace treaty Nixon forced them to sign in 1973 because they knew he would have bombed them again. Ford allowed South Vietnam to fall so the US could "heal".
Iraq, if we are not careful, will end up the same way. I don't have the answer but all of the options are zesty.
And why are all the options zesty? Because the U.S. never should have gone in at all. Like I said from the beginning.
Quote from: Diomedes on December 23, 2006, 12:58:11 PM
And why are all the options zesty? Because the U.S. never should have gone in at all. Like I said from the beginning.
A full scale war wasn't necessary to anyone except the corporations involved who are reaping billions of dollars in blood money.
Death toll for U.S. has topped 100 for December, with three days to go.
Two of the five dealiest months in this never ending war were logged in the last three calendar months. It ain't getting better. Anyone who tells you so is lying.
The total count for U.S. dead is 2989. It's distinctly possible that we could start the new year with the 3,000th casualty.
The plight of the Iraqi citizens is unmentionable, not least because so few people here give a damn.
Saddam won't make it to 2007 (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16384738/)
(http://www.gunbancon.com/rumsfeld%20saddam.jpg)
also, since I posted this morning 2 more U.S. casualties were reported. Nine more makes 3,000.
Quote from: Diomedes on December 28, 2006, 07:04:42 PM
(http://www.gunbancon.com/rumsfeld%20saddam.jpg)
(http://www.umkc.edu/lib/spec-col/ww2/PostWarWorld/images/potsdam.jpg)
Even U.S. Presidents and cabinet members can learn the hard way that the enemy of my enemy is not necessarily my friend.
December '06 just surpassed October '06 to become the third deadliest month for U.S. troops (tied with January '05) since the U.S. invaded Iraq.
Only four more to go before the count hits 3,000.
Quote from: Diomedes on December 29, 2006, 03:00:06 PM
Only four more to go before the count hits 3,000.
It seems like you are more excited for the count to reach 3,000 than the count down for the New Year Dio. :-\
"Seems" comes from you, not from me. I'm pissed off these people are being murdered by their government. But I've done my part. I opposed this shtein long before it even started, when Bush and his gang of criminals--your heros--started the war chant. I've marched, donated, voted. I can't do much more than ring the bell each time these lives are wasted.
I'm just reminding you war mongering iceholes who supported this shtein how much blood is on your hands. What you detect and misinterpret as glee is the disdain and mounting hatred I bear for you and your gang of bloodsucking greedy pigs.
Yet the irony remains that you hate those who are ringing the bell for. Your soap box lecture rings very hollow when you post things like you are too good/smart to serve, and call those who are serving murderers.
I don't hate the soldiers. I pity them.
If I ever said I was better--and I don't think I have--it was long ago and I was wrong to say so. I am however smarter, and as much of a waste as these deaths are, it would be that much and more for me to serve and die, since I know better. They don't know better.
If you think I hate these poor bastiches, that's because you bear nothing but contempt for people who aren't as smart as you, and once again, that's on you, moneylover.
Saddam to be hung in 3 hrs. Yea! :fire
BOOO! That might push someone ahead of me in the GhoulPool. Wait until Monday.
Here's an interesting take on Saddam's impending execution. (http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1573182,00.html)
In my opinion, this is going to be a dangerous thing to do. No doubt that, by any standards of justice, Hussein deserved execution, but this could cause a nuclear explosion of sorts in the Iraq war.
This could escalate the fighitng to heights we fear to even think about.
ha
(http://www.iveka.com/saddam.gif)
In my opinion, this is going to be a dangerous thing to do. No doubt that, by any standards of justice, Hussein deserved execution, but this could cause a nuclear explosion of sorts in the Iraq war.
totally agree....why put more attention on sadaam...stick him in a jail cell and let him rot out of the public eye until he kicks it...everyone has pretty much forgot about him...at this point killing him looks like the US piling on and can only piss people off
Not really, IGY. The US suggested no Death Penalty to appease the UN and UK, but it doesnt matter if that info isnt available to the people affected. Anyway heres some international tv http://wwitv.com/portal.htm (http://wwitv.com/portal.htm)
It's done. (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20061230/ap_on_re_mi_ea/saddam)
hung 30 minutes ago :yay
so he'll never know if the birds win the division?
Al Arribaya was reporting he was executed at 10pm our time.
Of all the places to pick for an Iraqi celebration, why did CNN pick Dearborn, Michigan? ???
CNN says hanging photos and video will be released soon...
Dearborn has an very large population of Iraqis who came over as refugees during the Iran/Iraq War in the 1980s.
They probably figure its one of the most densely populated areas in the United States for Iraqis and Middle Eastern people in general (I think an even larger population are Lebanese).
Quote from: BigEd76 on December 29, 2006, 10:43:11 PM
Of all the places to pick for an Iraqi celebration, why did CNN pick Dearborn, Michigan? ???
CNN says hanging photos and video will be released soon...
Where the hell did you get 5000 cartons of cigarrettes?
From the Dearborn hijacking
I've been flipping between CNN and FoxNews, and something has struck me.
CNN is focusing on the evil deeds of Hussein's rule, and has Iraq's ambassador (whether to the US or the UN I'm not sure) speaking about Hussein.
Fox is focusing on how the war is screwed up, and has two former generals speaking on how the war could be turned around (in the words of one of the generals, it's bordering on impossible).
Geo you must be drinking because i dont think thats possible :-D
Quote from: Seabiscuit36 on December 29, 2006, 11:41:28 PM
Geo you must be drinking because i dont think thats possible :-D
It was really weird. If I drank at all, I'd be wondering myself.
Of course, five minutes after I posted, CNN had on one of Saddam's lawyers declaring the whole trial illegal.
So it's all good. :yay
Can't really see anything, but here's the first pic from Drudge:
(http://www.drudgereport.com/sh1.jpg)
(http://i.a.cnn.net/cnn/2006/WORLD/meast/12/30/hussein/newt1.saddam.02.ap.jpg)
justice is served
Quote5 U.S. Troops Added To Death Toll in Iraq
December's Number Steadily Edging Toward Highest Monthly Tally of '06
By Nancy Trejos
Washington Post Staff Writer
Friday, December 29, 2006; Page A20
BAGHDAD, Dec. 28 -- The U.S. military death toll in Iraq this month continued to rise as officials reported Thursday that five more American service members had died.
The latest deaths brought to 100 the number of service members killed in December, according to iCasualties.org, an independent Web site that tracks military fatalities.
Most were killed in Iraq's western Anbar province, where Sunni Arab insurgents are aggressively fighting U.S.-led forces, and most were killed by roadside bombs, according to a Washington Post analysis of data.
The deadliest month this year has been October, with 105 American military fatalities, according to data provided by the U.S. Department of Defense. The number of service members who have died since the U.S.-led invasion in 2003 is 2,979.
December's death toll has been climbing steadily, with most of the daily attacks against American service members occurring in Anbar province and the capital. While U.S. troops are fighting the insurgency in Anbar, they are also trying to calm sectarian violence in Baghdad.
"This has been a difficult month for coalition forces," Maj. Gen. William B. Caldwell, the top U.S. military spokesman in Iraq, told reporters Wednesday. "You know, our deepest condolences go out to those families, to their friends -- of those who have lost somebody very near and dear to them this month."
As of Thursday, the Pentagon's official death toll for December was 94. The department waits 24 hours after next-of-kin notification to include a fatality in its official tally. The U.S. military in Iraq puts out news releases before a loss is officially counted but withholds names.
On Thursday, one soldier died and another was wounded when a roadside bomb detonated near their patrol north of Baghdad, the military said. A day before, the soldiers had been involved in the capture of four suspected insurgents believed to have planted a rocket on a main road, according to the military.
On Wednesday, a roadside bomb detonated near a patrol southwest of the capital. Two soldiers were killed and one was wounded, the military said. The unit had detained five suspected insurgents the week before after watching them place a bomb in a road.
Also Wednesday, a soldier was killed and two were wounded while clearing a road in east Baghdad, the military said. The same day, in Anbar province, a Marine assigned to Regimental Combat Team 5 was killed in combat.
The military also announced that Iraqi soldiers, with the help of U.S. military advisers, had captured a suspected cell leader of al-Qaeda in Iraq believed to be responsible for the June kidnapping of two American soldiers who were later tortured and killed.
On Tuesday, Iraqi forces conducted an air assault to capture the suspected al-Qaeda leader in the town of Yusufiyah, south of Baghdad. The U.S. military declined to name the suspect.
Hanging is a helluva way to go. I wanna see the video.
Electric chair
gas chamber
hanging
firing squad
lethal injection
worst to easiest, imo.
Quote from: mussa on December 30, 2006, 09:44:39 AM
justice is served
Ha. Not even close, dude. The guy was responsible for the murder, torture, rape and/or "disappearance" of millions. I expect he's receiving his first taste of justice right about now, though, and I doubt the Devil uses anal lube.
Dead Saddam...
http://www.philly.com/images/philly/philly/16351/267366596647.jpg (http://www.philly.com/images/philly/philly/16351/267366596647.jpg)
Quote from: Jerome99RIP on December 30, 2006, 10:41:10 AM
Quote from: mussa on December 30, 2006, 09:44:39 AM
justice is served
Ha. Not even close, dude. The guy was responsible for the murder, torture, rape and/or "disappearance" of millions. I expect he's receiving his first taste of justice right about now, though, and I doubt the Devil uses anal lube.
i was being sarcastic
Quote from: mussa on December 30, 2006, 12:05:20 PM
Quote from: Jerome99RIP on December 30, 2006, 10:41:10 AM
Quote from: mussa on December 30, 2006, 09:44:39 AM
justice is served
Ha. Not even close, dude. The guy was responsible for the murder, torture, rape and/or "disappearance" of millions. I expect he's receiving his first taste of justice right about now, though, and I doubt the Devil uses anal lube.
i was being sarcastic
Flew over my head like a seagull on crack.
Yahoo Link (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20061230/ap_on_re_mi_ea/saddam)
Quote"First it was weapons of mass destruction. Then when there were none, it was that we had to find Saddam. We did that, but then it was that we had to put him on trial," said Spc. Thomas Sheck, 25, who is on his second tour in Iraq. "So now, what will be the next story they tell us to keep us over here?"
QuoteThe execution took place during the year's deadliest month for U.S. troops, with the toll reaching 109. At least 2,998 members of the U.S. military have been killed since the Iraq war began in March 2003, according to an Associated Press count.
Isn't he going to be in some sort of trouble for saying that? :paranoid
Quote from: Jerome99RIP on December 30, 2006, 10:41:10 AM
Ha. Not even close, dude. The guy was responsible for the murder, torture, rape and/or "disappearance" of millions.
Millions? Link??
well if you include the Iran Iraq war and Kuwait along with shteine uprisings you probably have your million
Quote from: Diomedes on December 30, 2006, 01:43:58 PM
Quote from: Jerome99RIP on December 30, 2006, 10:41:10 AM
Ha. Not even close, dude. The guy was responsible for the murder, torture, rape and/or "disappearance" of millions.
Millions? Link??
How many people in his own country have died as a direct result of his actions? How about Iran? How many people died there as a result of his actions? How many people were tortured, raped, or otherwise brutalized during his regime?
It's in the millions, Dio.
Edited - did a quick Google search and found this:
http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/12/14/sprj.irq.saddam.profile.ap/index.html
Well, that link says 180,000 kurds, 5,000 Iraqi Kurds gassed, 50 alleged spies, 22 other people, and he's attributed responsibility for many thousands of suicide bomber-driven fatalities.
If we give you the benefit of the doubt and round up generously, that puts the count around 200,000.
You got a long way to go to reach millions.
sorry Dio guess i thought 200k was a bad thing when people get the death penalty for less
Hundreds of thousands were killed during the Iran war on both sides. That's what the link says, Dio.
Also - I wasn't just talking about deaths. I was talking about casualties of all kinds. Rape, torture, starvation, disease. . . the whole bag of nightmares can be attributed to the actions of that psycho.
But if you want to nitpick with me over numbers, that's fine. Obviously there's no way I can positively give you an exact number.
Just saying, it's not millions. Sorry you don't like the truth. Go back to Hannity, he'll tell you what you wanna hear.
Quote from: Jerome99RIP on December 30, 2006, 02:14:28 PM
Hundreds of thousands were killed during the Iran war on both sides. That's what the link says, Dio.
Also - I wasn't just talking about deaths. I was talking about casualties of all kinds. Rape, torture, starvation, disease. . . the whole bag of nightmares can be attributed to the actions of that psycho.
But if you want to nitpick with me over numbers, that's fine. Obviously there's no way I can positively give you an exact number.
Obviously, you're equivocating in the face of someone who challenges your ignorance, shifting what you meant, etc.. Obviously, you were mistaken.
Dio,
The Iraqi diplomat said roughly 2 million last night. Can't say they're right (and yes, I know it's not a "neutral source"), or what the breakdown is.
Here's another link, Dio:
http://www.gbn.com/ArticleDisplayServlet.srv?aid=2400&msp=1242
Read my original post. I included casualties in it, not just deaths. It's pretty apparent you didn't read the post in its entirety and chose instead to focus on one element of it.
Millions of people were brutalized during his regime, period, end of story.
Quote from: Jerome99RIP on December 30, 2006, 01:38:28 PM
Isn't he going to be in some sort of trouble for saying that? :paranoid
'Technically' he cannot get in trouble for voicing his opinion, but you better damn well believe he's gonna get shtein on from his CO on down.
Quote from: Geowhizzer on December 30, 2006, 02:23:56 PM
Dio,
The Iraqi diplomat said roughly 2 million last night. Can't say they're right (and yes, I know it's not a "neutral source"), or what the breakdown is.
Obviously that guy was just a puppet spouting propoganda. Obviously.
::)
Timeline of Hussein's reign from the New York Times:
(http://www.sptimes.com/2003/12/15/hussein-timeline/images/wor-timelinelarge.gif)
Millions!!1!
(http://www.corriere.it/Media/Foto/2006/12_Dicembre/30/giannelli.gif)
this take on the event is well said:
QuoteSaddam to the gallows. It was an easy equation. Who could be more deserving of that last walk to the scaffold - that crack of the neck at the end of a rope - than the Beast of Baghdad, the Hitler of the Tigris, the man who murdered untold hundreds of thousands of innocent Iraqis while spraying chemical weapons over his enemies? Our masters will tell us in a few hours that it is a "great day" for Iraqis and will hope that the Muslim world will forget that his death sentence was signed - by the Iraqi "government", but on behalf of the Americans - on the very eve of the Eid al-Adha, the Feast of the Sacrifice, the moment of greatest forgiveness in the Arab world.
But history will record that the Arabs and other Muslims and, indeed, many millions in the West, will ask another question this weekend, a question that will not be posed in other Western newspapers because it is not the narrative laid down for us by our presidents and prime ministers - what about the other guilty men?
No, Tony Blair is not Saddam. We don't gas our enemies. George W Bush is not Saddam. He didn't invade Iran or Kuwait. He only invaded Iraq. But hundreds of thousands of Iraqi civilians are dead - and thousands of Western troops are dead - because Messrs Bush and Blair and the Spanish Prime Minister and the Italian Prime Minister and the Australian Prime Minister went to war in 2003 on a potage of lies and mendacity and, given the weapons we used, with great brutality.
In the aftermath of the international crimes against humanity of 2001 we have tortured, we have murdered, we have brutalised and killed the innocent - we have even added our shame at Abu Ghraib to Saddam's shame at Abu Ghraib - and yet we are supposed to forget these terrible crimes as we applaud the swinging corpse of the dictator we created.
from this op-ed: http://news.independent.co.uk/world/fisk/article2112555.ece
I was actually wondering when the first leftist on this board would cast W in the same light with Saddam and ask why they don't deserve the same fate. Typical. Predictable. Hyperbolical.
(but not without the slightest shred of merit, which is the only reason why something like it gets published)
how is bush that much different tho...the only difference is bush killed hundreds of thousands of innocent people in another country while sadaam did it in his own country
bush is torturing people all over the world...from abu ghrib to secret cia camps to guantanamo
he is slaughtering gobs of innocent people in iraq every day
all for his own perverted reasons...probably a lot of the same reasons sadaam killed and tortured people
First leaked video! (http://www.pandachute.com/videos/leaked_saddam_being_hung_video)
He drops around 1:37....
U.S.A.!! U.S.A.!!
pVVn3d!
:P
Quote from: ice grillin you on December 30, 2006, 06:29:04 PM
how is bush that much different tho...
He's American, which means God is on his side, that's how it's different. Get in line, terrorist lover.
Quote from: Diomedes on December 30, 2006, 07:35:03 PM
Quote from: ice grillin you on December 30, 2006, 06:29:04 PM
how is bush that much different tho...
He's American, which means God is on his side, that's how it's different. Get in line, terrorist lover.
Speaking of getting in line, you leftists are pretty good at patting each other on the back also.
I luv me sum vanillaicegrillinyou
(http://www.dack.com/images/weblog/vanilla-ice.jpg)
Quote from: ice grillin you on December 30, 2006, 06:29:04 PM
how is bush that much different tho...the only difference is bush killed hundreds of thousands of innocent people in another country while sadaam did it in his own country
bush is torturing people all over the world...from abu ghrib to secret cia camps to guantanamo
he is slaughtering gobs of innocent people in iraq every day
all for his own perverted reasons...probably a lot of the same reasons sadaam killed and tortured people
Bush praises Jesus so it's okay, now if he praised Allah it wouldn't be.
I stopped (or tried) blaming Bush the day he was re-elected and started to blame the American people.
Quote from: BigEd76 on December 30, 2006, 07:10:22 PM
First leaked video! (http://www.pandachute.com/videos/leaked_saddam_being_hung_video)
He drops around 1:37....
That was intense
Quote from: SD_Eagle on December 31, 2006, 08:25:21 AM
Quote from: ice grillin you on December 30, 2006, 06:29:04 PM
how is bush that much different tho...the only difference is bush killed hundreds of thousands of innocent people in another country while sadaam did it in his own country
bush is torturing people all over the world...from abu ghrib to secret cia camps to guantanamo
he is slaughtering gobs of innocent people in iraq every day
all for his own perverted reasons...probably a lot of the same reasons sadaam killed and tortured people
Bush praises Jesus so it's okay, now if he praised Allah it wouldn't be.
I stopped (or tried) blaming Bush the day he was re-elected and started to blame the American people.
This.
and That.
"You get what you deserve" is the thought that kept buzzing around in my head on election night.
:-[
:paranoid
Here comes the leftist militia to pat each other on the back for having the same exact anti-Bush thoughts over and over and over and over again! What a happy day!
Get over yourselves. We all get it. Bush is an evil dictator and must be stopped.
Now please do your part to nominate Hillary, so you all can truly find out what evil is.
I know you're not happy with Bush either, FF. Not remotely.
How could I be? How could anyone be?
I simply don't think he's pure evil like Saddam. He's actually too damn stupid to be that evil. His advisors and the actual decision-makers are arguably on par with Saddam in many ways, but still...
I don't understand how Americans can't at least agree that Saddam was an evil piece of shtein and justice has been served, instead of immediately jumping to the Saddam/Bush comparisons.
Instead of accentuating the similarities in each other's opinions, so many people choose to polarize everything and pick fights. It's downright retarded, and it's one of the main reasons our government and 99% of our elected officials are a steaming pile of useless crap.
Quote from: FFatPatt on December 31, 2006, 09:44:04 AM
How could I be? How could anyone be?
I simply don't think he's pure evil like Saddam. He's actually too damn stupid to be that evil. His advisors and the actual decision-makers are arguably on par with Saddam in many ways, but still...
I don't understand how Americans can't at least agree that Saddam was an evil piece of shtein and justice has been served, instead of immediately jumping to the Saddam/Bush comparisons.
Instead of accentuating the similarities in each other's opinions, so many people choose to polarize everything and pick fights. It's downright retarded, and it's one of the main reasons our government and 99% of our elected officials are a steaming pile of useless crap.
^^^^^^
Truth
I appreciate the backup and all, but you're not exactly Mr. Compromise either.
Ha. You got TrollJoel your nuts. Good luck washing that off.
3,000 (http://icasualties.org/oif/)
Happy New Year.
Here's an interesting article on why Americans have been "more sensitive" about deaths in Iraq than in past wars. (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070101/ap_on_re_us/3000_fallen_what3000_means)
Quote from: FFatPatt on December 31, 2006, 11:39:30 AM
I appreciate the backup and all, but you're not exactly Mr. Compromise either.
Don't flatter yourself. I simply didn't want to post the same exact thing you did.
I am one of the most centrist people on this board, but because I think Bush bashing is idiotic I've been labeled by
Hugo Dio as a Nazi/Right Wing/Bush fellating/money loving apologist for warmongers. This is not to say Bush shouldn't be held liable for what he's created, but there are actually asses that post here that think he won't step down in January 2009 and that he ordered 9/11 to happen.
The sooner that idiot and the gang of thugs around him are out of office, the better.
January 20, 2009 can't get here soon enough for me.
Interesting op-ed piece from the Washington Times:
To win in Iraq (http://www.washtimes.com/op-ed/20061227-092444-4051r.htm)
might as well start the year with a roundup..
U.S. Troops
3,003 (http://icasualties.org/oif/) killed.
22,057 (http://icasualties.org/oif/) injured.
Iraqi civilians
Bush flippantly admitted to 30,000 in the spring of '06.
52,512min/58,097max (http://www.iraqbodycount.org/index.php) killed according to Iraq Body Count. (counting only deaths reported in media., a very conservative number)
here's a rapidly aging summary of different estimates (http://www.onlinejournal.com/artman/publish/article_643.shtml)
one recent estimate based on research by Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health estimated that 650,000 civilians have died in violence since the U.S. invasion. (http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/03/world/middleeast/03Casualties.html)
150,000 (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/11/10/AR2006111000164.html), says the Iraqi Health Ministry.
nobody really counts the dead Iraqis. Only the invaders are counted.
for reference:
9/11 Civilians killed: 2,986 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/September_11,_2001_attacks)
Osama Bin Ladins killed: 0
Economic costs
In April of '06, WashPo reported greater than 320 billion (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/04/26/AR2006042601601.html). The war costs at least 200 million dollars per day (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11880954/), and $1 trillion dollars will have been dumped into this distaster before too long. A couple scholars (one a Nobel winner) have estimated the cost at greater than 2 trillion (http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article15499.htm).
U.S. casualties by war (active wars bolded)
357 - Afgan War (2001-2007)
382 - Persian Gulf War (1990-1991)
2,260 - War of 1812 (1812-1815)
2,446 - Spanish-American War (1898)
3,003 - Iraq War (2003-2007)
4,435 - Revolutionary War (1775-1783)
13,283 - Mexican War (1846-1848)
36,574 - Korean War (1950-1953)
58,200 - Vietnam War (1964-1975)
116,516 - WWI (1917-1918)
405,399 - WWII (1941-1945)
498,332 - Civil War (1861-1865)
Length of U.S. wars (active wars bolded)
Vietnam War ...... 8 years, 5 months
Revolutionary War ......... 6 years, 9 months
Afghanistan ........... 5 years, 2 months
Civil War ......... 4 years
Iraq ............ 3 years, 9 months
WWII ............... 3 years, 8 months
Korean War ........ 3 years, 1 month
War of 1812 ......... 2 years, 6 months
U.S.-Mexico War ............ 1 year, 10 months
WWI ............ 1 year, 7 months
Spanish American War ............ 8 months
Persian Gulf War .......... 1.5 months
propaganda used
We must stay the course.
Mission Accomplished.
Coalition of the willing.
Bring 'em on.
The insurgency is in its last throes.
U.S. troops will be greeted as liberators.
Smart bombs.
Victory is the only option.
Dead or Alive.
End of major combat.
WMDs
It will be a quick war. "I doubt six months" - Rumsfeld.
The U.S. doesn't execute POWs or civilians.
Iraq and Saddam were connected to Al Queda and 9/11.
Iraqi oil will pay for the reconstruction.
The U.S. doesn't torture.
There is real progress being made in the reconstruction of Iraq.
We're there to get Saddam out, then we're Audi like a Saudi on 9/11.
The U.S. doesn't torture.
The world is safer because the U.S. invaded Iraq.
We're there to free the people and give them Democracy (whether they like it or not).
Comparing wars across different generations is like comparing athletes from different generations. They didn't compete the same, have the same rules, or use the same equipment...and that goes for both sides of the argument.
to call the iraq INVASION a war is disingenuous and really pisses me off
Quote from: ice grillin you on January 03, 2007, 09:41:01 AM
to call the iraq INVASION a war is disingenuous and really pisses me off
Sign of the apocalypse.... I agree with IGY.
Sure the actual invasion was a war. After that it has turned into a police action. We called a war a police action in Vietnam and now we're calling a police action a war in Iraq.
Just goes to show you that no matter what you do, if people don't like the current War/Conflict/Police action they'll want it called something else. During Vietnam people were pissed because the gov't kept calling it a police action...now people are pissed because Iraq is called a war.
Worthless semantics...especially to the people fighting and dying.
Quote from: Butchers Bill on January 03, 2007, 08:13:13 AMComparing wars across different generations is like comparing athletes from different generations. They didn't compete the same, have the same rules, or use the same equipment...and that goes for both sides of the argument.
Perspective is the point, not comparison. I suppose you'd rather Iraq were discussed in a vaccum without reference to any other war? Or maybe not discussed at all?
Quote from: Diomedes on January 03, 2007, 12:18:14 PM
Quote from: Butchers Bill on January 03, 2007, 08:13:13 AMComparing wars across different generations is like comparing athletes from different generations. They didn't compete the same, have the same rules, or use the same equipment...and that goes for both sides of the argument.
Perspective is the point, not comparison. I suppose you'd rather Iraq were discussed in a vaccum without reference to any other war? Or maybe not discussed at all?
Discussion is healthy
Label Maker, and something you clearly have no interest in.
Comparing
conflicts across generations is pointless for the reasons I pointed out before. Iraq should be discussed based on whats happening in Iraq today, not what happened in Vietnam 40 years ago.
That's some strange ass logic, but luckily I don't take direction on how a subject should be discussed from the likes of you. Feel free to ignore history if that makes you feel better. I think it's quite valid to bear in mind the other wars in U.S. history when considering the current wars.
What's it called when your opponent assigns you a position that you don't hold, and then attacks it to make you look bad? Whatever that's called, you're good at it. I never said we ought to compare...you created that position for me, and you're the one harping on it.
Dio, you posted all kinds of stats comparing various US wars, and now you want to backpedal and say you really weren't comparing them. I didn't put you in that position, you did.
No. I posted a list of facts. I made no comparisons or extrapolations from them.
Ted Williams would have kicked ass in Iraq
Quote from: Butchers Bill on January 03, 2007, 11:54:55 AM
Just goes to show you that no matter what you do, if people don't like the current War/Conflict/Police action they'll want it called something else. During Vietnam people were pissed because the gov't kept calling it a police action...now people are pissed because Iraq is called a war.
Worthless semantics...especially to the people fighting and dying.
If you think the difference between war and police action is just semantics then I've got nothing for you. Certainly you approach a war a whole hell of a lot differently the you would approach a police action. There in lies the problem. The strategy in Iraq was fubar as soon as the invasion was over because the yahoos in charge bought their own hype and decided to sell the whole thing the wrong way. Everyone had the wrong expectations from the get go and now your seeing the political back lash. Bush is not an evil dicator. He is however horrible at foreign affairs and has made a mess that will last for many generations to come. Of course that is how this whole mess got started anyway. the only thing conservative about Bush are his stances on social issues. Besides that he's a fiscal liberal with the same horrible foreign affair traits that Carter had.
In my humble opinion anyway...
Quote from: Phanatic on January 03, 2007, 12:50:47 PM
Quote from: Butchers Bill on January 03, 2007, 11:54:55 AM
Just goes to show you that no matter what you do, if people don't like the current War/Conflict/Police action they'll want it called something else. During Vietnam people were pissed because the gov't kept calling it a police action...now people are pissed because Iraq is called a war.
Worthless semantics...especially to the people fighting and dying.
If you think the difference between war and police action is just semantics then I've got nothing for you. Certainly you approach a war a whole hell of a lot differently the you would approach a police action. There in lies the problem. The strategy in Iraq was fubar as soon as the invasion was over because the yahoos in charge bought their own hype and decided to sell the whole thing the wrong way. Everyone had the wrong expectations from the get go and now your seeing the political back lash. Bush is not an evil dicator. He is however horrible at foreign affairs and has made a mess that will last for many generations to come. Of course that is how this whole mess got started anyway. the only thing conservative about Bush are his stances on social issues. Besides that he's a fiscal liberal with the same horrible foreign affair traits that Carter had.
In my humble opinion anyway...
I do not disagree with most of what you are saying, but who gets to define "war" and "police action"? People are fighting and dying for causes...does it really matter what we call it? :-\
It matters because of how we approach it and sell it. In this capitalistic society everything must be sold. Even if it is foreign policy decisions and government spending choices. Watching people in charge fail to understand that and fail miserably because of it is not fun.
Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it. - George Santayana
(http://www.homeofheroes.com/presidents/pres_johnson_lyndon.jpg)(http://www.homeofheroes.com/presidents/pres_bush_2.jpg)
(Edit - Sorry, just noticed that I had accidentally erased part of the quote.)
As far as defining this as a war or police action, it clearly at this point is a police action. However, as BB said it is really semantics, the end result is the same. Troops and civilians dead. As far as comparing wars goes, from a tactical standpoint very few can be compared to one another. That being said political climate and the social/economic factors as it pertains to war can definately be compared.
3,078
At least we can rest assured that they died for a worthy cause. And that the wounded survivors will be well taken care of...
QuoteMcCain blasts 'vote of no confidence'
By HOPE YEN, Associated Press Writer
58 minutes ago
WASHINGTON - The top Republican on the Senate Armed Services Committee sought to weaken support for a resolution opposing President Bush's Iraq war strategy, saying Sunday that supporters are intellectually dishonest.
Arizona Sen. John McCain (news, bio, voting record), a 2008 presidential candidate, contended the bipartisan nonbinding resolution amounted to a demoralizing "vote of no confidence" in the U.S. military because it criticized Bush's plans to send 21,500 more troops to Iraq without offering concrete alternatives.
"I don't think it's appropriate to say that you disapprove of a mission and you don't want to fund it and you don't want it to go, but yet you don't take the action necessary to prevent it," McCain said.
"In other words, this is a vote of no confidence in both the mission and the troops who are going over there," he said, noting the proposal does not seek to cut off money for troops.
"I do believe that if you really believe that this is doomed to failure and is going to cost American lives, then you should do what's necessary to prevent it from happening rather than a vote of "disapproval," which is fundamentally a vote of no confidence in the troops and their mission," McCain said.
An early test vote is tentatively set for Monday.
A fellow Vietnam veteran, GOP Sen. Chuck Hagel (news, bio, voting record) of Nebraska, disagreed with McCain's assessment. Hagel said the resolution would make clear the Senate's belief that Bush's policy is misguided.
Hagel said the proposal also lays out alternatives such as moving troops away from the sectarian violence and closer to the Iraq border to provide "territorial integrity."
"We can't change the outcome of Iraq by putting American troops in the middle of a civil war," said Hagel, who is considering a run for the White House in 2008.
The Democratic-controlled Senate heads toward a showdown this week on the bipartisan resolution by Sen. John Warner (news, bio, voting record), R-Va. In a bid to attract more GOP support, Warner added a provision pledging to protect money for troops in combat.
The newly worded resolution states that Congress "should not take any action that will endanger United States military forces in the field, including the elimination or reduction of funds for troops in the field."
That compromise, however, drew the ire of some Democrats, including Sens. Christopher Dodd (news, bio, voting record) of Connecticut and Russell Feingold of Wisconsin, who said it leaned too far in endorsing the status quo. They want to see binding legislation to cap troop levels, force a new vote to authorize the war or begin bringing troops home.
Republican leaders worked to block a vote on Warner's resolution. They insisted that several proposals be considered and each be subject to 60 votes — a strategy that could dilute support for Warner's measure and make it tougher for any measure to pass.
McCain, who is sponsoring a resolution expressing support for a troop increase and setting benchmark goals for the Iraqi government, sought to capitalize on some of the Democratic division. Democrats hold a 51-49 working majority in the Senate.
He said Warner's proposal makes no sense for Democrats who want stronger action. It also risks undercutting a military mission that could haunt the U.S. in the future should it fail.
"The consequences of failure are such that you will see a level of violence that far exceeds anything that we have seen," McCain said. "I believe we've got a great general there. I believe that this new strategy has a good chance of success."
Hagel said the Warner resolution strikes a careful balance for a majority of senators who oppose a troop buildup but differ on the appropriate response. If the resolution passes, some Democrats may choose to move forward with stronger measures against the war, he said.
"This is not a cut and run resolution," Hagel said.
He called McCain's proposal meaningless because it offers benchmarks but does not spell out what the U.S. government will do if the Iraqi officials fail to meet them.
"What are the consequences? Are we then going to pull out?" Hagel asked. "Are we going to cut funding? Now, that falls more in the intellectually dishonest category."
Hagel and McCain appeared on ABC's "This Week."
Now it's intellectually dishonest to vote your conscience? I see.
:-D
McCain in 2008!
Cut the funds. Bring 'em home.
Kucinich has the best plan anyone's bothered to propose.
http://kucinich.us/node/1803
3,097 btw
The dems are shooting themselves in the foot if they go with a non binding resolution or anything short of cutting off the money. They need to stick their necks out and end this shtein. They're weak though, and it won't happen.
The territorial integrity thing is a joke as well. We can't even police our own borders in this country yet the U.S. military is supposed to keep insurgents out of Iraq by being border patrol guards??
That's laughable.
We were given our mission this week during a brief by my CO. According to him we will be going to Southern Baghdad and will go somewhere between the June and September time frame. It is funny we were given our plan of action, basically an ambiguous outline and it is pretty much the same as what is supposed to be happening. Rebuild their infrastructure and create jobs to reduce insurgency.
You're being lied to.
The RIP Drunkmaster thread is gonna suck.
I know that is why I said it was funny. My mission is stay alive, because the DMF RIP thread would suck.
When in doubt, start frenching your CO.
http://www.wane.com/Global/story.asp 6049621&nav=menu32_2
QuoteWASHINGTON Critics charge the military is obscuring the actual number of troops wounded in both Iraq and Afghanistan by leaving out soldiers and Marines who suffer non-combat injuries.
The most frequently circulated number of those who've been wounded is about 23-thousand. But when troops hurt in other ways, including accidents, is added in, the number more than doubles to about 53-thousand.
Senators Barack Obama and Olympia Snowe are introducing legislation to require what they call "honest numbers" about the wars' toll.
Presidential hopeful Obama says the effects on soldiers and their families is the same whether the soldier is hit by enemy fire, injured in a crash or made sick by service in a war zone.
Who woulda thunk the secret Bush government would hide the real cost of the war? I mean...they're doing what's best for our boys, right? Support our troops by lying about how many are hurt, preventing a supposedly free nation from photographing flag draped coffins bearing fallen heros, etc?
Bush and his regime...worst ever.
last four months deadliest stretch for U.S. troops in whole war.
http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2007/02/07/america/NA-GEN-US-Iraq-Death-Toll-Rising.php
QuoteWASHINGTON: More U.S. troops were killed in combat in Iraq over the past four months — at least 334 through Jan. 31 — than in any comparable stretch since the war began, according to an Associated Press analysis of casualty records.
Not since the bloody battle for Fallujah in 2004 has the death toll spiked so high.
The reason is that U.S. soldiers and Marines are fighting more battles in the streets of the Iraqi capital, Baghdad, and other cities. And while hostile forces are using a variety of weapons, the top killer is the roadside bomb.
how many times have we been told about progress? lies.
U.S. lost this thing, single handedly and unilaterally instigated a global crisis, and killed a lot of innocent people.
no WMDS. Saddam long gone. no connection to 9/11. Osama alive and plotting--he's a patient farger and we're happy to give him time.
Bush out to be jailed
i barely pay any attention to this stuff...but i had a friend over for the SB and he was trying to tell me that the media was blowing the loss of soldiers out of proportion in Iraq.
when, i told him that they barely talked about it anymore, he got all fired up and told me that i need to watch less ESPN and more Fox News. so, after i mocked him for using Fox News as his source of "fair and equal" news reporting, we had a discussion about this.
and like i said, the little i know about this is embarrassing, but he dropped a gem on me that got me fired up. he actually said this, "I don't know what the big deal is, the death toll is what, 2,000? More soldiers than that died in one battle during World War II." I honestly couldn't talk for 30 seconds. I then tried to explain to him how that war and this "war" are entirely different and cannot be compared in any way.
then he dropped the normal shtick of "Saddam fund terrorism", "war on terror" and all that shtein, as i tried to tell him that this was a fraudulent war and they never should've invaded in the first place. i just couldn't believe that there was anyone out there that still thought this war was not only legit, but necessary. incredible.
we didn't talk much the rest of the night.
its not how many soldiers have died....its how many soldiers have died for absolutely no reason....
no one wants any dying but i think we can all agree that we would accept large scale losses were we say defending our own border or saving the world from being taken over....little things like that
i cant imagine what the guy you were talking to thinks about the hundreds of thousands of inniocent people who have died in iraq if hes that callous about the death of our own soldiers
i dont think id like him to much...try not to invite him to any tailgates next year
ha, no problem, he's a casual Eagles fan, and casual Eagles fans don't get invited to games.
he's a good guy overall, he's just blinded by his so called devotion to his party. the problem is, he isn't a very political person, he just hears stuff on "the news" and repeats it as fact.
the reason for dying is what I was trying to get across to him. people dying in WWII was for a good cause, it was a legit war. but one person dying in Iraq for the reasons we went over there is criminal, and can't be defended.
Quote from: SunMo on February 07, 2007, 11:16:50 AM
he's a good guy overall, he's just blinded by his so called devotion to his party. the problem is, he isn't a very political person, he just hears stuff on "the news" and repeats it as fact.
You should be a good friend, and put him out of his misery.
Yeah, take him down to see Sarge, get him signed up, and see him off to his useless death in Iraq.
Got this in my e-mail this morning. There is no way to make them stop polluting my mailbox. :boom
Quote
SUBJ: Call to Service from the Commandant of the Marine Corps
Our Nation is at war - our Corps is at war - fighting a determined enemy bent on terror and domination. Make no mistake, it is a war we must win! Success by the enemy will dramatically change the world as we know it, leaving a harsh environment for our children and grandchildren to endure.
I don't need to tell you that over five years of deployments to the fight have put a strain on our Corps. Acknowledging that, and the necessity to win this struggle, the President has recently authorized the Marine Corps to grow. In a larger Marine Corps, we will need the leadership, savvy, and determination that experienced Marines like you provide. Now, more than ever, your Marine Corps needs you.
Many of you have already sacrificed a great deal - and have already served your country in a courageous and honorable manner. However, in this hour of national crisis, I encourage every Marine who is considering closing the chapter on his or her Marine Corps service to reconsider. You are elite among the Nation's warriors. America and your Corps need you now, and I ask you to re-enlist - or to extend your commitment - to help us defeat this enemy and see us through the crisis. Think about the experience you have to offer and what it could mean to your fellow Marines still engaged in the fight. I know that any decision to stay in the Corps is both very important and very personal - one that has far reaching effects on both you and your family. In light of this, I have authorized new incentives for your extension / re-enlistment in recognition of your experience and honorable service.
Contact your Commanding Officer, First Sergeant or Career Retention Specialist for more information.
You are part of a new generation of Marines - carrying the battle-tested colors of our Corps. You have carried them with pride and with honor; I ask you to carry them with me for just a while longer.
Semper Fidelis,
James T. Conway
General, U.S. Marine Corps
Commandant of the Marine Corps
7 Feared Dead In Iraq Chopper Crash
All seven people aboard a CH-46 helicopter are believed dead after it crashed
Wednesday in Iraq.
MORE DETAILS: <http://www.nbc10.com/tu/5mtKYfB3Z.html>
3,115
30 this month already.
The video of the copter being shot down.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=67SwkQTysLE
maybe its just me showing my age but its amazing to me that a soldier can film the shooting down of a helicopter in iraq and have it on the internet 48 hrs later for me to watch at work
3,144
60 in 19 days of February 2007 and Bush is sending 21,500 MORE troops.
U.S.A.!! U.S.A.!! U.S.A.!! U.S.A.!!
371 - Afgan War (2001-2007)
382 - Persian Gulf War (1990-1991)
2,260 - War of 1812 (1812-1815)
2,446 - Spanish-American War (1898)
3,185 - Iraq War (2003-2007)
4,435 - Revolutionary War (1775-1783)
13,283 - Mexican War (1846-1848)
36,574 - Korean War (1950-1953)
58,200 - Vietnam War (1964-1975)
116,516 - WWI (1917-1918)
405,399 - WWII (1941-1945)
498,332 - Civil War (1861-1865)
Afgan war will soon move out of last place.
i've never seen the numbers laid out like that. farging shtein, almost 500K in the Civil War, wow.
and there were a lot fewer Americans back then, too.
I'm sure I've asked this before but what's the deal with the Revolutionary War figure?
That seems awfully low.
Romey paging Geo...
Quote from: SunMo on March 07, 2007, 12:16:38 PM
i've never seen the numbers laid out like that. farging shtein, almost 500K in the Civil War, wow.
The ten costliest battles of the Civil War. (http://www.civilwarhome.com/Battles.htm)
The Battle of Gettysburg alone would make #4 on Dio's list.
Ha!
Scummy little shteinbag draft-dodging chickenhawks should really shut the farg up. (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070312/ap_on_go_pr_wh/us_iraq_19)
Yeah, how DARE the Congress challenge the Dicta... errr... I mean, President's decisions concerning discretionary spending?
Who do they think they are - representatives elected by the people of the United States?!
3,210
From Time:
Month by month history of Iraq war (http://www.time.com/time/2007/iraq/index.html)
The Iraq 'War' was once supported by 70% of the people.... funny how poor planning and mismanagement change things.
Quote from: Phanatic on March 16, 2007, 02:51:30 PM
The Iraq 'War' was once supported by 70% of the people.... funny how poor planning and mismanagement change things.
The initial war was strategically planned great, the U.S. overthrew Iraq in 2 weeks, found Hussein etc. Everything that followed was poorly planned by a small group with their own agenda. People initially supported the war out of fear.
They didn't exactly find Hussein right way bro.
Quote from: SD_Eagle on March 16, 2007, 02:56:10 PM
Quote from: Phanatic on March 16, 2007, 02:51:30 PM
The Iraq 'War' was once supported by 70% of the people.... funny how poor planning and mismanagement change things.
The initial war was strategically planned great, the U.S. overthrew Iraq in 2 weeks, found Hussein etc. Everything that followed was poorly planned by a small group with their own agenda. People initially supported the war out of fear.
Agree mostly. Even if it took a while to find Hussein the US military was designed for the first part of the war. The rest of it not so much.
Right tool for the job and all of that.
Quote from: Diomedes on March 16, 2007, 02:58:37 PM
They didn't exactly find Hussein right way bro.
Point taken. Guess it seemed fast considering they're still searching for Bin Laden.
Sure they are.
What was the total count of Americans killed on 9/11? As soon as the American death count of the "war on terror" matches that, I think even the most staunch pro-war people would have to question the effectiveness of the tactics.
That count was passed a while ago.
2,973 people died in 9/11, not counting hijackers or first responders who have died of respiratory failure, etc.
3,210 in Iraq + 373 Afganistan = 3,583
2,752
I think we passed that last October
Quote from: SD_Eagle on March 16, 2007, 02:56:10 PM
Quote from: Phanatic on March 16, 2007, 02:51:30 PM
The Iraq 'War' was once supported by 70% of the people.... funny how poor planning and mismanagement change things.
The initial war was strategically planned great, the U.S. overthrew Iraq in 2 weeks, found Hussein etc. Everything that followed was poorly planned by a small group with their own agenda. People initially supported the war out of fear.
I don't think that people supported the war out of fear, I think most thought it was a good cause. Getting rid of Hussein and his henchmen. I agree though that everything that has followed has been poorly planned.
As far as training I agree with Phanatic, the military was very well trained for the first part of the war. As far as it is now, I don't know. Sometimes we train with tactics that will be very helpful for this type of police action and other times we train with tactics that are for traditional warfare i.e. WWII. It is quite frustrating at times. It often seems that we still haven't learned our lessons from Vietnam.
Quote from: Diomedes on March 16, 2007, 03:19:36 PM
That count was passed a while ago.
Ah.
This war sucks.
Quote from: Drunkmasterflex on March 16, 2007, 03:25:36 PM
I don't think that people supported the war out of fear, I think most thought it was a good cause.
I doubt most Americans that didn't have money invested in oil gave two shteins about invading Iraq. The American people supported the war because of the threat of WMDs. Colin Powell was pretty convincing. Add to that they put a seed in peoples heads that Iraq/Hussein had something to do with 9/11 (There are still people who believe that, which is pretty ignorant and semi-racist thinking IMO)
I even supported finishing up business with Hussein. But he was captured quite some time ago and is now dead, so they're quite past the statute of limitations on that one.
Best war evaaaaaaaar!!!!
Quote from: Drunkmasterflex on March 16, 2007, 03:25:36 PM
Quote from: SD_Eagle on March 16, 2007, 02:56:10 PM
Quote from: Phanatic on March 16, 2007, 02:51:30 PM
The Iraq 'War' was once supported by 70% of the people.... funny how poor planning and mismanagement change things.
The initial war was strategically planned great, the U.S. overthrew Iraq in 2 weeks, found Hussein etc. Everything that followed was poorly planned by a small group with their own agenda. People initially supported the war out of fear.
I don't think that people supported the war out of fear, I think most thought it was a good cause. Getting rid of Hussein and his henchmen. I agree though that everything that has followed has been poorly planned.
As far as training I agree with Phanatic, the military was very well trained for the first part of the war. As far as it is now, I don't know. Sometimes we train with tactics that will be very helpful for this type of police action and other times we train with tactics that are for traditional warfare i.e. WWII. It is quite frustrating at times. It often seems that we still haven't learned our lessons from Vietnam.
Yeah I really think the US fighting force should train to kick ass and stick with that. Anyone wants to deploy troops should know that they're going to kick ass and not half ass anything. If you can't stomach that leave the troops at home. Break glass only in case of emergancies.
3,228
Just read the other day that as many as 800 mercenaries have been killed as well. They make up the second largest foreign force in Iraq, larger than England's troop contigent. Working for Blackwater, Halliburton, etc...they are being paid U.S. taxpayer money to fight outside the law, making upwards of 150 per year right alongside army soldiers pulling in a fraction of that. Most are American, but there are a lot of Brits and South Africans working as mercenaries too.
What a farging mess.
Question: Which Democratic candidate would be the best choice for the quickest and most thorough withdrawal of forces from Iraq? I'd say Kucinich, but what about candidates with a chance to win...?
With a chance to win? I guess Obama. But you're offering a false choice. None of them have much of a plan at all, or the balls to bring one off if they did.
The answer is Kucinich.
Quote from: Diomedes on March 22, 2007, 10:04:25 AM
3,228
Just read the other day that as many as 800 mercenaries have been killed as well. They make up the second largest foreign force in Iraq, larger than England's troop contigent. Working for Blackwater, Halliburton, etc...they are being paid U.S. taxpayer money to fight outside the law, making upwards of 150 per year right alongside army soldiers pulling in a fraction of that. Most are American, but there are a lot of Brits and South Africans working as mercenaries too.
What a farging mess.
I was contemplating taking one of those merc jobs for a little while. Just doing it for a year and banking about 120 grand......all tax free. I'd say probably close to 90% of the people doing those jobs are prior military and the rest likely have some sort of police/law enforcement background.
I've decided against doing it now, but it's still on the back burner just incase.
Didn't want to find out that Marc Anthony beat up your girlfriend in a Miami high school?
Some diision showing among the Democrats in the Senate:
Levin: Senate will keep paying for war (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070408/ap_on_go_co/us_iraq)
3,292
The average deaths per day is 2.4 for the whole war (call it 48 months). The last month in which the average death toll per day was less than the average for the whole war was August 2006. Seven and a half months straight of higher than normal casualties...so yeah, things are gettting better aren't they Mr. McCain?
AP photographer still held in Iraq (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070411/ap_on_re_us/detained_photographer)
At 85, this month is already the deadliest since December of last year. At the current rate April '07 will probably go down as one of the deadliest in this neverending war.
Current count is 3,332.
Quote from: Diomedes on April 11, 2007, 09:36:44 AM
The average deaths per day is 2.4 for the whole war (call it 48 months).
Very close to Philly's current homicide rate
2 and a half murders a day? Ha. What a shteinhole.
Philly is the new Iraq
Bomb Philadelphia!
They already did (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MOVE)
2 and a half murders a day?
not even close but its still really really bad
406 in 2006
128 so far this year
but it's just drug dealers shooting each other up, so who cares?
Why can't babies start shooting grandmothers? That's what I want to know.
but it's just drug dealers shooting each other up, so who cares?
why are their open air drug markets in every hood...why do you think theres a gun and liquor store on every corner in the hood....why do you think the only restaurants in the hood are ones that sell food that isnt fit for an animal...why isnt there jobs in the hood....why do the schools have no books...and most importantly why is all this allowed to happen
that shtein wouldnt fly in columbia md...westchester ny...or cherry hill nj...govt wouldnt let it happen
but they are more than happy to sit back and watch minority communities committ self genocide
it's more like assisted self genocide.
true
this month also happens to be a very bad month for UK troops. In fact, the worst since the war started.
Quote from: ice grillin you on April 24, 2007, 11:08:59 AM
that shtein wouldnt fly in columbia md...westchester ny...or cherry hill nj...govt wouldnt let it happen
but they are more than happy to sit back and watch minority communities committ self genocide
I'm sure it goes without saying that you are doing your part to revive urban "hoods" in your area. After all, it's impossible that you just sit at your computer and wax poetic about it without really attempting to effect any change.
Oh shut up, moneylover. You're doing dick all to help anyone but yourself and your waterhead baby, so leave off the moralizing.
That's exactly the point. People who don't preach about urban renewal at all(like me) are better than those that spout volumes about it but also do nothing personally. I agree.
You agree that you do nothing. Good for you moneylover.
I'm doing my part by paying Federal taxes through the teeth. Are you currently earning any wages from which to provide our totally well-meaning and non-bureaucratic government assistance programs the funding they so desperately need? After all, we know the only answer for fixing the ghettos is bigger government.
It always comes back to money for you. Your money, your tax burden. Waaaah.
It makes the world go 'round, I heard.
It makes your pathetic world go round, obviously.
Money, so they say
Is the root of all evil today.
But if you ask for a raise it's no surprise that they're
giving none away.
that's what i say...
I'm sure it goes without saying that you are doing your part to revive urban "hoods" in your area.
i dont have that kind of money...only the govt does...but i do give what i can afford to several different groups....i also volunteer when i can...you should try giving instead of taking...its fun
Sometimes I give so much it hurts.
Quote from: ice grillin you on April 24, 2007, 12:10:09 PM
i dont have that kind of money...only the govt does...but i do give what i can afford to several different groups....i also volunteer when i can...you should try giving instead of taking...its fun
You gave reece's family $10
im a little concerned that wasnt enough
Some people are obviously beyond help.
good read
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/04/24/AR2007042402595.html
check this out
http://iraqforsale.org/
QuoteDirector Robert Greenwald is testifying today on outsourcing before the Defense Subcommittee of the House Appropriations Committee. He was invited to testify before Congress by Rep. Jim Moran and intended to show four minutes from Iraq For Sale. Instead, Republicans banned the excerpts from being shown. The video below is what was intended to be shown before Congress.
good find murp....im gonna get it
QuoteHOME > Local
Military cuts soldiers' access to YouTube, MySpace
By ROBERT WELLER, Associated Press
Posted Monday, May 14, 2007 at 11:44 am
DENVER — Soldiers serving overseas will lose some of their online links to friends and loved ones back home under a Department of Defense policy that a high-ranking Army official said would take effect today.
The Defense Department will begin blocking access "worldwide" to YouTube, MySpace and 11 other popular Web sites on its computers and networks, according to a memo sent Friday by Gen. B.B. Bell, the U.S. Forces Korea commander.
The policy is being implemented to protect information and reduce drag on the department's networks, according to Bell.
"This recreational traffic impacts our official DoD network and bandwidth ability, while posing a significant operational security challenge," the memo said.
The armed services have long barred members of the military from sharing information that could jeopardize their missions or safety, whether electronically or by other means.
The new policy is different because it creates a blanket ban on several sites used by military personnel to exchange messages, pictures, video and audio with family and friends.
Members of the military can still access the sites on their own computers and networks, but Defense Department computers and networks are the only ones available to many soldiers and sailors in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Iraqi insurgents or their supporters have been posting videos on YouTube at least since last fall, and the Army recently began posting videos on YouTube showing soldiers defeating insurgents and befriending Iraqis.
But the new rules mean many military personnel won't be able to watch those videos — at least not on military computers.
If the restrictions are intended to prevent soldiers from giving or receiving bad news, they could also prevent them from providing positive reports from the field, said Noah Shachtman, who runs a national security blog for Wired Magazine.
"This is as much an information war as it is bombs and bullets," he said. "And they are muzzling their best voices."
The sites covered by the ban are the video-sharing sites YouTube, Metacafe, IFilm, StupidVideos and FileCabi; social networking sites MySpace, BlackPlanet and Hi5; music sites Pandora, MTV, 1.fm and live365; and the photo-sharing site Photobucket.
Several companies have instituted similar bans, saying recreational sites drain productivity.
"We're in Iraq fighting for Democracy & FREEDOM!!"
LOL - what a farging joke.
:-D
we killed some "top Al-Queda leader" named Mullah Dadullah over the weekend. i think it's gotten to the point where they're just making up names.
i hope next week we get julia gulia.
Working in the bandwidth business somewhat I can understand why they would need to do that...
Do you really want our tax $$ being spent to buy larger connections to the internets so that people can use myspace?
Quote from: Phanatic on May 14, 2007, 02:43:58 PM
Working in the bandwidth business somewhat I can understand why they would need to do that...
Do you really want our tax $$ being spent to buy larger connections to the internets so that people can use myspace?
Quote from: MURP on May 10, 2007, 09:05:52 PM
check this out
http://iraqforsale.org/
Quote from: Phanatic on May 14, 2007, 02:43:58 PM
Working in the bandwidth business somewhat I can understand why they would need to do that...
Do you really want our tax $$ being spent to buy larger connections to the internets so that people can use myspace?
It's the least we can do.
Quote from: Jerome99RIP on May 14, 2007, 03:43:09 PM
Quote from: Phanatic on May 14, 2007, 02:43:58 PM
Working in the bandwidth business somewhat I can understand why they would need to do that...
Do you really want our tax $$ being spent to buy larger connections to the internets so that people can use myspace?
It's the least we can do.
Just saying that I see where they're coming from. When web surfing impacts production systems heads tend to roll in the civilian sector. I imagine it's the same working for the government. They should put up seperate internet links for soldiers to use. Kind of like the long distance phone systems and shtein.
Speaking of abusing bandwidth.... :paranoid
3,400
I am headed there this fall.
3,434
[mindless chant] U.S.A.!! U.S.A.! [/mindless chant]
For the first time in this endless war, U.S. casualties have topped 100 in consecutive months.
Mission Accomplished.
Happy Memorial Day
U.S.A.! U.S.A.!
Quote from: Drunkmasterflex on May 14, 2007, 11:56:26 PM
I am headed there this fall.
Keep your head down, and good luck.
Not familiar with what service you are in. Are you on AD or in the reserves or NG?
Quote from: Diomedes on May 27, 2007, 08:41:18 AM
For the first time in this endless war, U.S. casualties have topped 100 in consecutive months.
Mission Accomplished.
Whose side are you on?
not yours
My niece just married a Marine that is headed to Iraq in September. The elections can't come soon enough.
today's death toll rockets the May '07 body count into third place since the war began.
it's been nine months (august '06) since the average daily death rate for a given month was below the average for the entire war (2.44 and rising)
don't start with Dio man. let me just tell you the conversation will go nowhere and only make each other angrier. your on total diff ends of the ladder. and i frankly don't feel like reading it.
Quote from: Phanatic on May 14, 2007, 02:43:58 PM
Working in the bandwidth business somewhat I can understand why they would need to do that...
Do you really want our tax $$ being spent to buy larger connections to the internets so that people can use myspace?
I don't know about the guys on the ground, but when I was over there in the Navy, my ship's satellite connection was only 192kbs for the entire ship, and that was if you had an optimum signal. This was 'way back' in 2001, so speeds may be higher now, but yeah, I can understand them wanting to save bandwidth.
Quote from: Drunkmasterflex on May 14, 2007, 11:56:26 PM
I am headed there this fall.
Don't forget to sit on your helmet!! ;D
Seriously, Good Luck and come home safe!
Quote from: tnt4philly on May 29, 2007, 10:38:45 PM
Quote from: Diomedes on May 29, 2007, 06:30:55 AM
not yours
Sorry, I assumed you were an American.
Someone didn't bother to read any of this thread. Le sigh. Let the namecalling begin! :yay
Quote from: NC_Eagle on May 29, 2007, 11:15:53 PM
Quote from: Phanatic on May 14, 2007, 02:43:58 PM
Working in the bandwidth business somewhat I can understand why they would need to do that...
Do you really want our tax $$ being spent to buy larger connections to the internets so that people can use myspace?
I don't know about the guys on the ground, but when I was over there in the Navy, my ship's satellite connection was only 192kbs for the entire ship, and that was if you had an optimum signal. This was 'way back' in 2001, so speeds may be higher now, but yeah, I can understand them wanting to save bandwidth.
Quote from: Drunkmasterflex on May 14, 2007, 11:56:26 PM
I am headed there this fall.
Don't forget to sit on your helmet!! ;D
Seriously, Good Luck and come home safe!
On the ground we have the NIPR and the SIPR. The SIPR is for secret comms, and is already restricted. The NIPR pretty much has the classification of any other Government connection with the added OPSEC of being in a combat zone. We got our connectivity OTA from the Marines that ran the FOB. I am not exactly sure what the total bandwidth of the system was, but there were times when th NIPR ran extremely slow. It got to the point that certain sites were restricted during the day.
Besides getting the internet VIA the MWR cafes, many of the troops on the ground have their own internet connections. I was part of a group of ten people that pitched in and bought a sat. system from an outgoing unit. After reselling the equipment to an incomong unit, our net cost pre person was about $200 for ten months of service that was a tab bit faster than dial up.
What is/was your rate in the Navy? I was in the Navy from 1987-1998 as an AT. I did six years in the Army Reserves before that, and have been in the PA National Guard since 1999. I was deployed with the 228th FSB from Jan05-Jun06. We were part of the 2BCT-28ID, and spent just shy of twelve months in the Anbar Province.
Quote from: General_Failure on May 29, 2007, 11:46:25 PM
Quote from: tnt4philly on May 29, 2007, 10:38:45 PM
Quote from: Diomedes on May 29, 2007, 06:30:55 AM
not yours
Sorry, I assumed you were an American.
Someone didn't bother to read any of this thread. Le sigh. Let the namecalling begin! :yay
I read enough of it, but I guess not enough to see where this guy comes from. Since he said that he was not on my side, I figured he wasn't an American.
Try reading more. Also, try less blind cliches.
Quote from: tnt4philly on May 30, 2007, 05:19:47 AM
Quote from: General_Failure on May 29, 2007, 11:46:25 PM
Quote from: tnt4philly on May 29, 2007, 10:38:45 PM
Quote from: Diomedes on May 29, 2007, 06:30:55 AM
not yours
Sorry, I assumed you were an American.
Someone didn't bother to read any of this thread. Le sigh. Let the namecalling begin! :yay
I read enough of it, but I guess not enough to see where this guy comes from. Since he said that he was not on my side, I figured he wasn't an American.
What more could I learn from reading the crap he writes? That he is against the war so much that he celebrates each American death as a victory for "his" side?
You're illiterate if you think I'm celebrating U.S. casualties.
Quote from: tnt4philly on May 30, 2007, 03:08:54 PM
Quote from: tnt4philly on May 30, 2007, 05:19:47 AM
Quote from: General_Failure on May 29, 2007, 11:46:25 PM
Quote from: tnt4philly on May 29, 2007, 10:38:45 PM
Quote from: Diomedes on May 29, 2007, 06:30:55 AM
not yours
Sorry, I assumed you were an American.
Someone didn't bother to read any of this thread. Le sigh. Let the namecalling begin! :yay
I read enough of it, but I guess not enough to see where this guy comes from. Since he said that he was not on my side, I figured he wasn't an American.
What more could I learn from reading the crap he writes? That he is against the war so much that he celebrates each American death as a victory for "his" side?
Again with the cheap, thoughtless, FOX News style bullying tactics. I thought you were supposed to be some sort of political pundit, so let's see it.
Quote from: Diomedes on May 30, 2007, 06:47:37 PM
You're illiterate if you think I'm celebrating U.S. casualties.
Then why post the number of deaths? Deaths are a part of war and using them to defend your stance is BS. If we ran from every war after a few thousand deaths, we would have stopped finishing them a few hundred years ago.
Quote from: General_Failure on May 30, 2007, 10:27:14 PM
Quote from: tnt4philly on May 30, 2007, 03:08:54 PM
Quote from: tnt4philly on May 30, 2007, 05:19:47 AM
Quote from: General_Failure on May 29, 2007, 11:46:25 PM
Quote from: tnt4philly on May 29, 2007, 10:38:45 PM
Quote from: Diomedes on May 29, 2007, 06:30:55 AM
not yours
Sorry, I assumed you were an American.
Someone didn't bother to read any of this thread. Le sigh. Let the namecalling begin! :yay
I read enough of it, but I guess not enough to see where this guy comes from. Since he said that he was not on my side, I figured he wasn't an American.
What more could I learn from reading the crap he writes? That he is against the war so much that he celebrates each American death as a victory for "his" side?
Again with the cheap, thoughtless, FOX News style bullying tactics. I thought you were supposed to be some sort of political pundit, so let's see it.
Typical, "degrade opposing views as thoughtless and cheap" argument. Only a genius could come up with stuff like "Fox News Tactics." Oh, and "bullying," talk about blind BS. If you think my views on this subject are political, then you are the one that has a problem with reading comprehension. Of the all the people I am, republican is at the bottom of the list. My views may define my political affiliation, but they are not formed by politics. When one of our troops is killed in Iraq, I do not see it as a loss for the Republicans, or a win for the Democratics, I see it a loss for America. If we do end up losing in Iraq, some may see it as a politcal victory, but I do not. If we lose, we all lose.
Yap yap yap yap. Shut the hell up the both of you.
Quote from: MDS on May 31, 2007, 12:07:34 PM
Yap yap yap yap. Shut the hell up the both of you.
LOL. How dare two people converse on a MB.
Quote from: tnt4philly on May 30, 2007, 05:01:21 AM
What is/was your rate in the Navy? I was in the Navy from 1987-1998 as an AT. I did six years in the Army Reserves before that, and have been in the PA National Guard since 1999. I was deployed with the 228th FSB from Jan05-Jun06. We were part of the 2BCT-28ID, and spent just shy of twelve months in the Anbar Province.
Now I remember, the 'SIPRnet' and 'NIPRnet'! I was in the Navy from 1989-2006 as a Hull Technician (HT), engineering rating. Got medically retired, (I'm actually on the TDRL for now) so I had to turn down the NC NG recruiter when he called me! :paranoid
This thread clearly needs more acronyms.
ha
romey said a funnie
Quote from: NC_Eagle on May 31, 2007, 03:11:04 PM
Quote from: tnt4philly on May 30, 2007, 05:01:21 AM
What is/was your rate in the Navy? I was in the Navy from 1987-1998 as an AT. I did six years in the Army Reserves before that, and have been in the PA National Guard since 1999. I was deployed with the 228th FSB from Jan05-Jun06. We were part of the 2BCT-28ID, and spent just shy of twelve months in the Anbar Province.
Now I remember, the 'SIPRnet' and 'NIPRnet'! I was in the Navy from 1989-2006 as a Hull Technician (HT), engineering rating. Got medically retired, (I'm actually on the TDRL for now) so I had to turn down the NC NG recruiter when he called me! :paranoid
HT =Turd Chaser?
I was done with the military when I got out of the Navy, but then I decided I wanted to go to college. When I joined the Navy I was too smart for college so I turned down the GI bill. the Pa NG has pretty good benis for school so I joined in 99.
It'd be nice if they sent you to Iraq real soon.
Quote from: tnt4philly on May 31, 2007, 04:11:41 PM
When I joined the Navy I was too smart for college so I turned down the GI bill.
Worst mistake you could have made, I'm banking $1200 a month for school.
Quote from: SD_Eagle on May 31, 2007, 07:45:11 PM
Quote from: tnt4philly on May 31, 2007, 04:11:41 PM
When I joined the Navy I was too smart for college so I turned down the GI bill.
Worst mistake you could have made, I'm banking $1200 a month for school.
Well, not the worse, but it ranks pretty high on the list.
If you are a war vet in PA can't you go to college for free?
I think the U.S. made a big mistake by failing to reinstate the draft when this thing started by Bush Co.
Quote from: Diomedes on May 31, 2007, 09:53:14 PM
I think the U.S. made a big mistake by failing to reinstate the draft when this thing started by Bush Co.
I assume that is sarcasm.
Quote from: Drunkmasterflex on May 31, 2007, 09:45:52 PM
If you are a war vet in PA can't you go to college for free?
I never saw anything about going for free, but reservists can get a portion of the active duty GI bill. The percentage they get depends on how long they were activated in support of OEF/OIF. I know that more than one year and less than two is 60%.
Quote from: Diomedes on May 31, 2007, 09:53:14 PM
I think the U.S. made a big mistake by failing to reinstate the draft when this thing started by Bush Co.
Yeah, that would have made the war real popular.
Quote from: Drunkmasterflex on May 31, 2007, 10:00:41 PM
Quote from: Diomedes on May 31, 2007, 09:53:14 PM
I think the U.S. made a big mistake by failing to reinstate the draft when this thing started by Bush Co.
I assume that is sarcasm.
I can see how you would think that, but I'm being serious. I don't think it's good for the brunt of death to be borne by the volunteers only when you're talking about killing and dying for country. I especially don't think it's a good idea for so much of the battle to be put in the hands of corporations employing mercenaries at the public expense. Basically, if the U.S. is gonna war, I think the whole nation should have a stake in it, not just the military class. No one for example, from my former hot shot NY employer's corporation went to Iraq, for example. Not one, in all these years. Hell, none of their children.
p.s. the mercenary death toll is somewhere around 800, almost all of whom are being paid (very well, unless they're from a third world country, in which case most of us make better money) by you and I under contract to the U.S. government, and operating under much less scrutiny than the soldiers
Quote from: Diomedes on May 31, 2007, 10:05:52 PM
Quote from: Drunkmasterflex on May 31, 2007, 10:00:41 PM
Quote from: Diomedes on May 31, 2007, 09:53:14 PM
I think the U.S. made a big mistake by failing to reinstate the draft when this thing started by Bush Co.
I assume that is sarcasm.
I can see how you would think that, but I'm being serious. I don't think it's good for the brunt of death to be borne by the volunteers only when you're talking about killing and dying for country. I especially don't think it's a good idea for so much of the battle to be put in the hands of corporations employing mercenaries at the public expense. Basically, if the U.S. is gonna war, I think the whole nation should have a stake in it, not just the military class. No one for example, from my former hot shot NY employer's corporation went to Iraq, for example. Not one, in all these years. Hell, none of their children.
Well I can agree to a point, but with as jacked up as the Army is right now with an all volunteer force, it would be that much worse if we were to conscript again. Hell you can get away with doing drugs multiple times in the Army these days before getting kicked out.
Quote from: Diomedes on May 31, 2007, 10:08:17 PM
p.s. the mercenary death toll is somewhere around 800, almost all of whom are being paid (very well, unless they're from a third world country, in which case most of us make better money) by you and I under contract to the U.S. government, and operating under much less scrutiny than the soldiers
Yeah that whole scrutiny thing is screwing things up even more over there.
Quote from: Diomedes on May 31, 2007, 10:05:52 PM
Quote from: Drunkmasterflex on May 31, 2007, 10:00:41 PM
Quote from: Diomedes on May 31, 2007, 09:53:14 PM
I think the U.S. made a big mistake by failing to reinstate the draft when this thing started by Bush Co.
I assume that is sarcasm.
I can see how you would think that, but I'm being serious. I don't think it's good for the brunt of death to be borne by the volunteers only when you're talking about killing and dying for country. I especially don't think it's a good idea for so much of the battle to be put in the hands of corporations employing mercenaries at the public expense. Basically, if the U.S. is gonna war, I think the whole nation should have a stake in it, not just the military class. No one for example, from my former hot shot NY employer's corporation went to Iraq, for example. Not one, in all these years. Hell, none of their children.
You make some good points for the drat, but I am not so sure I would have wanted to put my life in the hands of someone who did not want to be there. Not saying that all draftees would have been un-reliable, but I am sure many would have been pretty disgruntled
All the better reason to draft them. If the reasons were good, they wouldn't be disgruntled, and you wouldn't be so wary of having them fighting beside you. If the reasons for killing and dying are poor, then you will be made more uneasy and that's a good thing. Good people are not eager for war.
Quote from: Drunkmasterflex on May 31, 2007, 10:09:03 PM
Quote from: Diomedes on May 31, 2007, 10:05:52 PM
Quote from: Drunkmasterflex on May 31, 2007, 10:00:41 PM
Quote from: Diomedes on May 31, 2007, 09:53:14 PM
I think the U.S. made a big mistake by failing to reinstate the draft when this thing started by Bush Co.
I assume that is sarcasm.
I can see how you would think that, but I'm being serious. I don't think it's good for the brunt of death to be borne by the volunteers only when you're talking about killing and dying for country. I especially don't think it's a good idea for so much of the battle to be put in the hands of corporations employing mercenaries at the public expense. Basically, if the U.S. is gonna war, I think the whole nation should have a stake in it, not just the military class. No one for example, from my former hot shot NY employer's corporation went to Iraq, for example. Not one, in all these years. Hell, none of their children.
Well I can agree to a point, but with as jacked up as the Army is right now with an all volunteer force, it would be that much worse if we were to conscript again. Hell you can get away with doing drugs multiple times in the Army these days before getting kicked out.
That hardly makes the Army jacked up. The military as a whole is probably in the best shape when it comes to training an equipment than it has been in a long time. At least the PA National Guard is, which by the way, still has a zero percent tolerance for illegal drug use. We just had a guy get booted for popping hot for taking one of his wifes prescription meds.
Quote from: tnt4philly on May 31, 2007, 10:18:15 PM
Quote from: Drunkmasterflex on May 31, 2007, 10:09:03 PM
Quote from: Diomedes on May 31, 2007, 10:05:52 PM
Quote from: Drunkmasterflex on May 31, 2007, 10:00:41 PM
Quote from: Diomedes on May 31, 2007, 09:53:14 PM
I think the U.S. made a big mistake by failing to reinstate the draft when this thing started by Bush Co.
I assume that is sarcasm.
I can see how you would think that, but I'm being serious. I don't think it's good for the brunt of death to be borne by the volunteers only when you're talking about killing and dying for country. I especially don't think it's a good idea for so much of the battle to be put in the hands of corporations employing mercenaries at the public expense. Basically, if the U.S. is gonna war, I think the whole nation should have a stake in it, not just the military class. No one for example, from my former hot shot NY employer's corporation went to Iraq, for example. Not one, in all these years. Hell, none of their children.
Well I can agree to a point, but with as jacked up as the Army is right now with an all volunteer force, it would be that much worse if we were to conscript again. Hell you can get away with doing drugs multiple times in the Army these days before getting kicked out.
That hardly makes the Army jacked up. The military as a whole is probably in the best shape when it comes to training an equipment than it has been in a long time. At least the PA National Guard is, which by the way, still has a zero percent tolerance for illegal drug use. We just had a guy get booted for popping hot for taking one of his wifes prescription meds.
Comparing the National Guard and Regular Army is almost like comparing apples and oranges. And while the Army may have good training and decent equipment, the discipline and organization is absolutely awful. Add draftees to that mix and it compounds exponentially.
Quote from: Diomedes on May 31, 2007, 10:17:26 PM
All the better reason to draft them. If the reasons were good, they wouldn't be disgruntled, and you wouldn't be so wary of having them fighting beside you. If the reasons for killing and dying are poor, then you will be made more uneasy and that's a good thing. Good people are not eager for war.
Well, the volunteer miltary has alot of good people, and very few are eager for war.
Quote from: Drunkmasterflex on May 31, 2007, 10:21:51 PM
Quote from: tnt4philly on May 31, 2007, 10:18:15 PM
Quote from: Drunkmasterflex on May 31, 2007, 10:09:03 PM
Quote from: Diomedes on May 31, 2007, 10:05:52 PM
Quote from: Drunkmasterflex on May 31, 2007, 10:00:41 PM
Quote from: Diomedes on May 31, 2007, 09:53:14 PM
I think the U.S. made a big mistake by failing to reinstate the draft when this thing started by Bush Co.
I assume that is sarcasm.
I can see how you would think that, but I'm being serious. I don't think it's good for the brunt of death to be borne by the volunteers only when you're talking about killing and dying for country. I especially don't think it's a good idea for so much of the battle to be put in the hands of corporations employing mercenaries at the public expense. Basically, if the U.S. is gonna war, I think the whole nation should have a stake in it, not just the military class. No one for example, from my former hot shot NY employer's corporation went to Iraq, for example. Not one, in all these years. Hell, none of their children.
Well I can agree to a point, but with as jacked up as the Army is right now with an all volunteer force, it would be that much worse if we were to conscript again. Hell you can get away with doing drugs multiple times in the Army these days before getting kicked out.
That hardly makes the Army jacked up. The military as a whole is probably in the best shape when it comes to training an equipment than it has been in a long time. At least the PA National Guard is, which by the way, still has a zero percent tolerance for illegal drug use. We just had a guy get booted for popping hot for taking one of his wifes prescription meds.
Comparing the National Guard and Regular Army is almost like comparing apples and oranges. And while the Army may have good training and decent equipment, the discipline and organization is absolutely awful. Add draftees to that mix and it compounds exponentially.
Well, except for being activated, I was never on active duty in the Army. However, the active duty troops that I worked with, and the ones we get coming into the guard do not show a lack of discipline. As an ex Navy guy, I actually think that most of them sweat the small crap sometimes. On the other hand, over tha past twnty plus years, I have seen the military get a little lax on some things. Some of the junior troops get away with alot of stuff that we never would have twenty years ago. Either way, when put to the test, the guy that walks around with his hands in his pockets performs just as well as the guy who constantly complains about it.
It's okay to omit nested quotes at this point, and just highlight the one to which you are responding.
they dont want a draft....they wanna get rid of all the undesirables...eliminate the countrys poor people and uneducated...dont help them at home let them get killed over there...and stack chedda....how does it go again?...the rich get richer...
take a peek around....war built this
Quote from: ice grillin you on June 01, 2007, 08:16:46 AM
they dont want a draft....they wanna get rid of all the undesirables...eliminate the countrys poor people and uneducated...dont help them at home let them get killed over there...and stack chedda....how does it go again?...the rich get richer...
take a peek around....war built this
What? The way I understand what you are saying is that you think the military is full of poor, undersirable, and uneducated people. Well, there are not too many rich people in the military, but you are way off on the rest.
U.S. casualties by war (active wars bolded)
382 - Persian Gulf War (1990-1991)
398 - Afgan War (2001-2007)
2,260 - War of 1812 (1812-1815)
2,446 - Spanish-American War (1898)
3,510 - Iraq War (2003-2007)
4,435 - Revolutionary War (1775-1783)
13,283 - Mexican War (1846-1848)
36,574 - Korean War (1950-1953)
58,200 - Vietnam War (1964-1975)
116,516 - WWI (1917-1918)
405,399 - WWII (1941-1945)
498,332 - Civil War (1861-1865)
approx. 900 more casualties before Iraq surpasses the Revolutionary War (oh, the irony). at the current pace, that mark will be topped in about 9 or ten months.
War isn't working.
Quote from: tnt4philly on May 31, 2007, 10:04:44 PM
Quote from: Diomedes on May 31, 2007, 09:53:14 PM
I think the U.S. made a big mistake by failing to reinstate the draft when this thing started by Bush Co.
Yeah, that would have made the war real popular.
It would have given you guys at least a chance to succeed.
Unfortunately, there were a few problems:
1. The upper political echelon wanted to fight a war on the cheap.
2. The upper echelon was never interested in 'liberating the Iraqi people' and 'giving them freedom.' If this happened, this would be a nice bonus. Unfortunately, this is the only argument defending the war that can be used publicly. The real reason can not (oil, read PNAC documents). Therefore they were not interested in doing what was necessary to achieve those goals.
3. Massive overestimation of the capabilities of the US and US military for the type of mission they would have to fight. As IIRC some European NATO officers said (of the record): The US army is good at destroying things. They are not good at rebuilding (including winning hearts and minds). So far Afghanistan and Iraq proved them right.
I am not saying it is so much by a lack of effort by the men and women on the ground. It is a lack of training and lack of resources (material and men (battle fatigue)), that was predicted before the invasion. There is a reason why many other nations for this type of mission have a rotation schedule of 4 to 5 months (one of the lessons of the Srebrenica massacre).4. As hinted at in the previous topic, a complete lack of capability (and interest) to perform the kind of mission that is Iraq and Afghanistan. An interview with a regimental commander in the 82nd Airborne in Northern Iraq stated in a Dutch newspaper was shocking. A few of the most shocking highlights:
- There had been nothing but a very short summary briefing about counter insurgency tactics/methods in preparation of the mission. When he asked why there were not any additional briefings/classes or training exercises he was told to shut up; his comments were dismissed as irrelevant
- He had to order the most basic books about counter insurgency methods through Amazon.com and pay for them himself. They were not (made) available to him through regular army channels.
- He had to go ask the British, Dutch, Australians, Italians, Spaniards and Japanese to learn about their methods of dealing with the insurgency when in Iraq. And he had to do it behind the backs of senior Command in Baghdad, Bahrain and DC, as they had told him to just simply follow orders. Orders that had not been working (sometimes were completely counterproductive) for the previous unit (IIRC 4th infantry or Marines) in the region.
- He succeeded in getting the area quiet and calmed down. Basically by committing insubordination
Problems with a lack of body armor, boots, and the Stryker are indicative as well.
5. A general unwillingness to learn from others with more experience. And an unhealthy belief in American superiority causing that.
6. Many senior officers in the military, and Congress were simply cowards if not incompetents. They let themselves be deceived by the propaganda spewed by the Bush administration post 9/11, or were to scared to speak up. In that respect they were no better than many of the German Wehrmacht officers who did nothing to against Hitler's orders to start WW II. They shielded themselves behind the 'I was following orders' mantra. And yes, I consider my own Prime Minister, much of parliament and Tony Blair just as much a coward. It was frightening to observe how easily Bush & Co. turned the vast majority of Americans into sheep.
did you just embolden a part of your own post?
Bolding is generally used for emphasis instead of quoting.
yeah but ive never seen someone embolden their own post
usually its used to point out the only interesting part of a long article
Quote from: ice grillin you on June 12, 2007, 05:10:40 PM
yeah but ive never seen someone embolden their own post
usually its used to point out the only interesting part of a long article
Well,
I have had too many problems with people having a lack of reading skills and no reading comprehension at all. Especialy with topics like these, which are sensitive (to some). Therefore I think the boldened part needed a bit of emphasis.
I think there are serious problems with the attitude of most American troops on the ground in Iraq. I see it as an exponent of a more general problem. I am of the opinion that most man and women on the ground are trying to do the best they can, and genuinely think they are going the right way about it. Why? Simply because they have been told to do so in training.
IMHO the problem/cause is the upper echelons. It is the wrong training (can't fault the grunts for that). It is the general attitude that the US is superior to anything; it is the fact that the US military members are being protected no matter what by their government, and rarely are helt accountable for their actions if they involve non-Americans. The only time that happens is if there is a big stink made about it, and the political cost of shoving it under the carpet is to great. The examples are numerous:
1. Abu Graib.
2. The Marines killing the Iraqi family
3. Wedding parties bombed.
4. The journalist hotel in Baghdad shelled.
5. Friendly fire on a journalist convoy by an A-10.
6. Friendly fire, A-10 strafing an English armored column; covered up, until video footage from the actual attack was leaked.
7. A-6 pilots cutting the cables of a cable car in Italy due to illegal low flying, leaving IIRC 26 people dead. This despite numerous warnings over the years that low flying was illegal in the area, and several near misses. The authorities on the air base (IIRC Avioano) never seriously acted on the warnings and complaints. the responsible pilots were wisked out of the Italy before they could be prosecuted. Last we heared was that they were only demoted, if that.
8. The marines raping a Japanese girl on Okinawa. They were only handed over to the Japanese afte they threatened to end the leases for numerous American bases in Japan.
Quote from: DutchBird on June 13, 2007, 03:30:11 AM
Quote from: ice grillin you on June 12, 2007, 05:10:40 PM
yeah but ive never seen someone embolden their own post
usually its used to point out the only interesting part of a long article
Well,
I have had too many problems with people having a lack of reading skills and no reading comprehension at all. Especialy with topics like these, which are sensitive (to some). Therefore I think the boldened part needed a bit of emphasis.
I think there are serious problems with the attitude of most American troops on the ground in Iraq. I see it as an exponent of a more general problem. I am of the opinion that most man and women on the ground are trying to do the best they can, and genuinely think they are going the right way about it. Why? Simply because they have been told to do so in training.
IMHO the problem/cause is the upper echelons. It is the wrong training (can't fault the grunts for that). It is the general attitude that the US is superior to anything; it is the fact that the US military members are being protected no matter what by their government, and rarely are helt accountable for their actions if they involve non-Americans. The only time that happens is if there is a big stink made about it, and the political cost of shoving it under the carpet is to great. The examples are numerous:
1. Abu Graib.
2. The Marines killing the Iraqi family
3. Wedding parties bombed.
4. The journalist hotel in Baghdad shelled.
5. Friendly fire on a journalist convoy by an A-10.
6. Friendly fire, A-10 strafing an English armored column; covered up, until video footage from the actual attack was leaked.
7. A-6 pilots cutting the cables of a cable car in Italy due to illegal low flying, leaving IIRC 26 people dead. This despite numerous warnings over the years that low flying was illegal in the area, and several near misses. The authorities on the air base (IIRC Avioano) never seriously acted on the warnings and complaints. the responsible pilots were wisked out of the Italy before they could be prosecuted. Last we heared was that they were only demoted, if that.
8. The marines raping a Japanese girl on Okinawa. They were only handed over to the Japanese afte they threatened to end the leases for numerous American bases in Japan.
Interesting read. In talking to an Army common soldier on the ground and his opinion has some variation. That of course does not mean that it is the actual truth of the situation.
He feels that the incidents you've listed above are causing the upper echelon to limit his ability to do his job by over scrutinizing his every action. He was even demoted for an incident that he claims he was justified in his actions. He's an 18 year old kid when it all comes down to it. His actions could make CNN and form opinions.
I really think the troops are in an unwinnable spot because the tactics of those that don't want us there take advantage of our sensabilities. They attack each other to keep the religous unrest going between Shiites and Sunnis (Attack on a Shiite site just today) while making sure that no one feels safe anywhere in the country. Unsettle the troops with kid knappings road side bombs and if they too harsh they are admonished for it rightfully so. It all boils down to what happens to troops and politics in an unwinnable situation. No tactic is going to make things go right for those troops on the ground that is politically correct because war is not politically correct. War is kill or be killed. One reason why it should be avoided at all costs really.
I just did an appraisal for a woman who has been re-called for the second time to go back to Iraq. She's a medical specialist and the Army gave her two choices: either report for duty July 7th or go to prison. She was in Desert Storm then got out of the military for 9 years, got recalled after 9/11, did a 16 month tour over in Iraq, was released and is now being recalled.
The stories she told me about what is going on not only in Iraq but also how our military personnel are being treated in Europe, Asia, etc. was shocking. They farging HATE AMERICANS yet we keep sending in fresh grist for the mill. They don't want us there. In fact, they're just biding their time until we leave so they can get down to the business of wiping each other out. She also mentioned that certain fanatics have started to intentionally get injured so medical units will treat them and they can set bombs off that they attach to themselves. Why? For no other reason than to kill as many of our people as possible. You can read all the horror stories but until someone tells you these things face to face, it really doesn't register.
Anyway - I just wanted to say that this particular woman is doing something for her country that we can all be proud of. She has no choice, of course, because the piece of shtein corksucker in the White House is giving her and hundreds of thousands of others no choice, but she's putting her life on hold AGAIN to do something.
She has my respect and so do the countless others who've been forced into the same godawful situation.
I really think the troops are in an unwinnable spot because the tactics of those that don't want us there take advantage of our sensabilities. They attack each other to keep the religous unrest going between Shiites and Sunnis (Attack on a Shiite site just today) while making sure that no one feels safe anywhere in the country. Unsettle the troops with kid knappings road side bombs and if they too harsh they are admonished for it rightfully so. It all boils down to what happens to troops and politics in an unwinnable situation.
well said and these are all things that should be weighed BEFORE we invade another country but in the case of iraq were completely ignored
Quote from: Jerome99RIP on June 15, 2007, 09:12:57 AM
I just did an appraisal for a woman who has been re-called for the second time to go back to Iraq. She's a medical specialist and the Army gave her two choices: either report for duty July 7th or go to prison.
There was a thing on the news here a couple weeks back about the number of US troops that have gone over to Canada. Quite a few of them, from what the story said. Guy who went there to miss out on Nam is a lawyer helping out as many of them as possible.
The part where they interviewed the Wal*Mart American Pride wife was interesting. She went on about how she never thought here husband would be a traitor to his country, but she supports him now and goes to support groups full of the wives of AWOL soldiers.
Check out the new graduates! (http://blogs.abcnews.com/theblotter/2007/06/exclusive_suici.html)
Fuuuuuuck.
No worries. The Sunni insurgents we just gave arms to will probably take care of them for us...
And if they don't, at least Bush has secured the borders and ports. No way they even get in.
Quote from: Diomedes on June 18, 2007, 07:31:51 PM
And if they don't, at least Bush has secured the borders and ports. No way they even get in.
Thanks, I just had beer dribble out my nose on that one.
i thought the taliban was crushed and afghanistan a booming democracy??
well in the sense that a lot of money is being made (that's how Bush Cheney & Co define democracy, afterall) by evil fargs then yes, Afganistan is doing just fine.
Quote from: ice grillin you on June 18, 2007, 07:51:48 PM
i thought the taliban was crushed and afghanistan a booming democracy??
Absolutely. Same in Iraq.
no worries, the newly elected House and Senate are doing just as they promised, getting our troops out and cutting of the war budget :yay I'm sure they will build the joke of a couple hundred of miles of fence on our border that was passed by the last bunch of Yahoo's I hate all of them all of them are just one big fargin joke, out for their own $$$ bastiches.
Quote from: FastFreddie on June 18, 2007, 07:55:43 PM
Quote from: ice grillin you on June 18, 2007, 07:51:48 PM
i thought the taliban was crushed and afghanistan a booming democracy??
Absolutely. Same in Iraq.
mission accomplished baby, mission accomplished!!
Quote from: phillymic2000 on June 18, 2007, 08:07:12 PM
Quote from: FastFreddie on June 18, 2007, 07:55:43 PM
Quote from: ice grillin you on June 18, 2007, 07:51:48 PM
i thought the taliban was crushed and afghanistan a booming democracy??
Absolutely. Same in Iraq.
mission accomplished baby, mission accomplished!!
(http://daily.greencine.com/archives/mission-accomplished.jpg)
MISSION ACCOMPLISHED!
(http://media.philly.com/images/300*201/2836b049-c570-4acb-8f62-ca94f45bae39.jpg)
I was listening to talk radio today on the way home and they were going over the nicknames they gave president's and vp's. When they were protecting good ole George W, when his dad was in office his nickname was "tumbler" from his crazy days, also Al Gore was "sawhorse" until he made them change it to sundance. Carter was "Deacon", Reagan "rawhide" thats all I head, but tumbler pretty much sums this bastige up.
Quote from: phillymic2000 on June 18, 2007, 08:18:01 PM
Al Gore was "sawhorse" until he made them change it to sundance
(http://www.giveupalready.com/images/smilies/gay.gif)
14 more troops killed (http://www.comcast.net/news/index.jsp?cat=GENERAL&fn=/2007/06/21/695488.html&cvqh=itn_ustroops)
QuoteThe U.S. deaths raised to at least 3,545 the number of U.S. troops who have died since the war began in 2003, according to an Associated Press count.
but hey! paris hilton!
That leaves only about 54,500 to catch Vietnam. The way this war is being handled, I think it's possible.
still less than one battle in WWII, it's ok then!
Here ya go Dio: they made a t-shirt (http://carryabigsticker.com/bush_lied_shirt.htm) for you.
This shirt is now illegal in 4 states, with federal legislation to ban it pending. Yay free speech.
are you serious...there are actual laws banning a t shirt?
what a friggin joke...what is happening to this country
Quote from: ice grillin you on June 22, 2007, 08:58:29 AM
are you serious...there are actual laws banning a t shirt?
what a friggin joke...what is happening to this country
You obviously don't agree, but this is along the same lines with other big government personal freedom bans that you are completely in favor of.
Personal freedom is dead. Capitalism is dead. The mainstream politicians on both sides of the aisle want bigger government and more power.
You obviously don't agree, but this is along the same lines with other big government personal freedom bans that you are completely in favor of.
like what
id love to see you compare a t-shirt ban to another ban im in favor of?
Pick any of them, even smoking.
The thing you don't realize if you try so hard to separate one issue from the other is that giving the government more and more money and power is what allows all of them to happen.
except im not for a smoking ban....next
Quote from: ice grillin you on June 22, 2007, 09:14:26 AM
except im not for a smoking ban....next
Oh yeah? (http://www.concretefield.com/forum/index.php?topic=15367.msg423290#msg423290)
Quotescrew that...cigarettes should be illegal period
and if they arent gonna be keep em in your house...i dont want that nastiness around me
It continues throughout that thread. The fact you're even able to CLAIM you're not for a smoking ban is hilarious.
yeah they should stop selling them period...they do nothing but kill people
but if they are gonna allow them to be legal i wouldnt vote for a smoking ban....just a ban in enclosed public places
you on the other hand would still allow then to be smoked in places like office buildings and sporting arenas
Quote from: ice grillin you on June 22, 2007, 09:28:06 AM
but if they are gonna allow them to be legal i wouldnt vote for a smoking ban....just a ban in enclosed public places
you on the other hand would still allow then to be smoked in places like office buildings and sporting arenas
Holy contradiction, Batman!
its not a contridiction at all
im not against drinking i am against drinking and driving...or drinking in school
They are dodging around the free speech aspect by banning the use of the names of military servicemen on merchandise. I argue that is like saying you can't make an anti-bush tee or button since he is the commander and chief.
Freddie, my opinion on government control comes down to this: in the US, you have the right to do what you want, until it infringes on someone else's right to do the same. Smoking is unhealthy for someone else. Drinking is OK, but drinking and driving puts someone else at risk. Pissing on the sidewalk is a nuisance and health risk for others. Pollution kills animals and harms the ecosystem that everyone must live in.
On the contrary, I am pro drug legalization (except smoking pot in public places, see above), pro prostitution, pro gay rights, and pro anything else that involves what someone does with their own time that won't hurt anyone else without their consent.
Quote from: ice grillin you on June 22, 2007, 09:37:45 AM
its not a contridiction at all
im not against drinking i am against drinking and driving...or drinking in school
It's obvious you don't teach middle school. ;)
U.S. may reduce Iraq forces by spring (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070623/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/us_iraq)
I'll believe it when I see it.
Get drunk and screw...then move on.
I was for a smoking ban before I was against it.
Quote from: FastFreddie on June 22, 2007, 09:02:37 AM
Quote from: ice grillin you on June 22, 2007, 08:58:29 AM
are you serious...there are actual laws banning a t shirt?
what a friggin joke...what is happening to this country
You obviously don't agree, but this is along the same lines with other big government personal freedom bans that you are completely in favor of.
Personal freedom is dead. Capitalism is dead. The mainstream politicians on both sides of the aisle want bigger government and more power.
I know. This is why I'm considering campaigning for Ron Paul, who is essentially a Constitutionalist. But he's barely polling 2% and has no money, so what's the point.
Military Cracks Down on Protesting Vets (http://www.stltoday.com/stltoday/news/stories.nsf/nation/story/77E9772012D5195A86257304000EF0FC?OpenDocument)
Quote
Military cracks down on protesting vets
By Kirsten Scharnberg
CHICAGO TRIBUNE
Sunday, Jun. 24 2007
CHICAGO — The young combat veteran stared at the letter in disbelief when it arrived in his mailbox a few months ago.
The Marine Corps was recommending him for "other than honorable discharge." The letter alleged he had violated the Uniform Code of Military Justice by wearing part of his uniform during an antiwar rally. Furthermore, the letter accused him of being "disloyal," a word hard to swallow for a man who had risked his life to serve his nation.
"All this because I have publicly opposed the war in Iraq since I came back from it," said former Marine Sgt. Liam Madden, 22.
Madden is not alone.
The military has recommended less-than-honorable discharges for at least two other combat veterans who have returned from tours in Iraq and become well-known antiwar advocates. One of them is a young man from Missouri who is 80 percent disabled from two tours; Cpl. Cloy Richards was threatened with losing his veteran's disability benefits if he continued to protest in uniform.
Critics — including some groups that have been the most supportive of the war — say the crackdown on these men constitutes a blatant attempt to quiet dissension in the ranks at the very time more and more members of the armed forces are publicly questioning the war.
"I may disagree with their message, but I will always defend their right to say it," said Gary Kurpius, national commander of the Veterans of Foreign Wars, in a scathing statement he released this month under the headline, "VFW to Corps: Don't Stifle Freedom of Speech."
The military has been quick to defend its decision to punish the men, stating that its policies regarding acceptable forms of protest are quite clear.
Military guidelines state that troops may attend demonstrations only in the United States, only when they are off base and off duty, and, most critically, only when they are out of uniform.
"We don't restrict free speech," said Maj. Anne Edgecomb, an Army spokeswoman.
Perhaps the most telling part of troops' protest is how open disgruntled service members are becoming despite the risk to their careers — signing their names to furious letters printed in military-owned newspapers; speaking on the record to reporters in Iraq about how badly the mission is going; writing members of Congress.
In recent months, some 2,000 active-duty and Reserve troops have used a legally protected right to request redress of their grievances to send demands for an end of the war directly to Congress.
A poll of 944 U.S. military personnel in Iraq, conducted by Zogby International and Le Moyne College, found that 72 percent of those polled believed the U.S. should pull out within one year.
Of the three Marines caught protesting in uniform, Richards' case has garnered the least public attention — but the most within military circles. The
23-year-old from Salem, Mo., has been deemed 80 percent disabled from two tours in Iraq. Richards is in the Reserves. He agreed this month before a military discharge review board that he would no longer protest in uniform in order to keep his honorable discharge and veterans benefits that come to some $1,300 per month.
But that hasn't silenced Richards' protest. He now attends antiwar demonstrations in civilian clothes; his mother, Tina Richards, attends as well,
wearing his old uniform for him.
This is not a freedom of speech issue, nor is it a military censorship issue. The UCMJ (the "laws" for the military) clearly states that you can't protest in uniform, while on base, or while on duty. These people know this. If they want to protest the war -- fine. That's their right. Just follow the rules.
(http://www.photojournal.co.uk/timothy_allen_photographer_photos/timothy%20allen_extreme%20irony.jpg)
3,562
What's the politically correct U.S. tally on dead Iraqi civilians at these days??
About 1/20th the actual count. Cite any number above that and you're a commie traitor pinkofag.
Which count? the total of civilians killed by U.S. and other outside military's count, or the total by killed by middle east militant/militia? not that it matters to some people.
In more important news:
Sen. Lugar says U.S. should downsize the military's role in Iraq. (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070626/ap_on_go_co/lugar_iraq)
i dont understand the downsizing crowd
tho i dont agree with them i can at least understand the mccain philosophy of putting massive amounts of additional troops
to me its either full and complete pull out or put a million guys over there and truly take over the country
I agree completely. I guess it's going to be one of those special days on :CF.
In for a penny in for a pound.
If you try and do these things half-assed they never work. They rarely work when you put all your efforts into them but doing it they way Bush Corp. has done over the past 4 years is an absurd recipe for failure.
downsizing is the political answer...its not cut and running and its not supporting the war either....its a politician that cares more about his reelection than he does the troops
i think mccain is nuts but at least hes looking out for our people over there
Well, since Bush has no chance (hopefully :paranoid ) of ever being re-elected, I'd say it's high time he did what's right and bring all of the troops home. Those "poor Iraqi's" have been slaughtering each other for centuries. It was unmitigated hubris of our leaders to expect to change that in any way, shape or form.
Quote from: ice grillin you on June 26, 2007, 09:24:53 AM
downsizing is the political answer...its not cut and running and its not supporting the war either....its a politician that cares more about his reelection than he does the troops
i think mccain is nuts but at least hes looking out for our people over there
Agreed. Every politician's main concern isn't public service. It's getting elected or re-elected.
LOL - The "Hero" of 9/11 is blasting Bill Clinton now. (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070627/ap_on_el_pr/giuliani_bill_clinton_7;_ylt=AkWcMy9p4mg88yrpFa0FUYgL1vAI)
I wondered how long it would take for one of those lemons to blame Bubba for 9/11. Now I know.
:-D
Rudy's trying to appeal to the base I guess. Clinton is a favorite stereotypical GOP punching bag. I'm tired of it though. You could probably look trough US policy in the region and blame every administration for the "problems" in the middle east over the last 50 years at least.
What he's doing is he's smearing Hillary through her husband. Weak sauce, I agree, but totally in keeping with the GOP's never-ending campaign of distort, frighten & blame aimed at the Democrats specifically the Clintons.
Quote from: Phanatic on June 26, 2007, 11:52:14 PM
Rudy's trying to appeal to the base I guess. Clinton is a favorite stereotypical GOP punching bag. I'm tired of it though. You could probably look trough US policy in the region and blame every administration for the "problems" in the middle east over the last 50 years at least.
Bingo. You really can't blame any one administration. There were signs that were missed from every president, probably since at least Eisenhower.
Quote from: Jerome99RIP on June 27, 2007, 02:27:05 AM
What he's doing is he's smearing Hillary through her husband. Weak sauce, I agree, but totally in keeping with the GOP's never-ending campaign of distort, frighten & blame aimed at the Democrats specifically the Clintons.
Democrats do the same with the Republicans. It's a never-ending, nauseating cycle. I hate politics.
Quote from: Jerome99RIP on June 26, 2007, 09:05:19 PM
LOL - The "Hero" of 9/11 is blasting Bill Clinton now. (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070627/ap_on_el_pr/giuliani_bill_clinton_7;_ylt=AkWcMy9p4mg88yrpFa0FUYgL1vAI)
I wondered how long it would take for one of those lemons to blame Bubba for 9/11. Now I know.
:-D
Plenty of people have assigned a portion of blame to the Clinton White House, and rightfully so. The budgets for defense and intelligence dropped significantly during his Presidency and effectively opened up the country to attack. HOWEVER, Bush's administration (I don't even give him credit for being involved very much) made many specific tactical mistakes in the 8 months he was President before 9/11.
If you want to assign blame to American policy for the 9/11 attacks, Clinton and Bush both deserve a slice. I prefer to blame the douches that actually attacked us, though.
I didn't assign blame to anyone. Guiliani's the one doing the smearing here. If he's looking for someone to blame he should start with the idiots who crashed two planes into buildings, not an ex-President who was in Australia at the time of the attacks.
funny that rudy would mention the 93 attack...it was a few years after that attack that he decided to brilliantly put the cities emergency command center inside the wtc
hes one of the biggest frauds ever
Quote from: Jerome99RIP on June 27, 2007, 08:26:49 AM
I didn't assign blame to anyone. Guiliani's the one doing the smearing here. If he's looking for someone to blame he should start with the idiots who crashed two planes into buildings, not an ex-President who was in Australia at the time of the attacks.
I agree for the most part. I'm just saying that blaming Clinton is just as fair as blaming Bush. There are, however, plenty of things since 9/11 that Bush has sufficiently cocked up.
Quote from: ice grillin you on June 27, 2007, 08:29:32 AM
hes one of the biggest frauds ever
Agree completely. There is no way I would place a vote for Giuliani.
not that at any time i would have ever voted for either one but its sad (and scary) how much the base of the republican party changes what were once pretty moderate/independant guys like rudy and mccain into shells of their former selves
the power of the christian fundementalists is all that
Mainstream politics changes people on both sides of the aisle to shells of their former selves. Ron Paul and Dennis Kucinich are basically the only two candidates somewhat in the race that are sticking to their guns.
nothing compares tho to the extreme changes that the republican base causes in people
I'll agree because I probably hate the direction of the Republican party more than you anyway.
the main difference is that on the left you cant be a true liberal anymore...so they all sellout and move towards the middle...where as on the right they all move towards their base not away from it
and we all know what the pubs base has become
Well, the platform starts with sex with underage page boys and removal of personal liberties and goes from there.
Quote from: FastFreddie on June 27, 2007, 08:48:39 AM
Quote from: ice grillin you on June 27, 2007, 08:29:32 AM
hes one of the biggest frauds ever
Agree completely. There is no way I would place a vote for Giuliani.
I can't stand him
A bit paranoid and loony but an interesting read none the less...
http://sonic.net/~doretk/Issues/01-09%20FALL/theprofitability.html
(It's a bit long too. Be forewarned.)
killing the undesireables is a national pastime
The point of that article is killing everyone a bit prematurely is good for business.
Like I said... wacky but interesting.
Quote from: ice grillin you on June 27, 2007, 10:47:18 AM
the main difference is that on the left you cant be a true liberal anymore...so they all sellout and move towards the middle...where as on the right they all move towards their base not away from it
What is a 'true liberal'? Someone who thinks that people can't take care of themselves and that the government should be tasked with caring for everyone.
What is a 'true conservative'? Someone who thinks that the government should have absolutely no responsibility for taking care of the well-being of its citizens.
Do either of those stances make any sense to anyone? Why would anyone want to stand behind either of those? The less 'true liberals' and 'true conservatives' we have, the better.
Quote from: rjs246 on June 27, 2007, 12:26:52 PM
Quote from: ice grillin you on June 27, 2007, 10:47:18 AM
the main difference is that on the left you cant be a true liberal anymore...so they all sellout and move towards the middle...where as on the right they all move towards their base not away from it
What is a 'true liberal'? Someone who thinks that people can't take care of themselves and that the government should be tasked with caring for everyone.
What is a 'true conservative'? Someone who thinks that the government should have absolutely no responsibility for taking care of the well-being of its citizens.
Do either of those stances make any sense to anyone? Why would anyone want to stand behind either of those? The less 'true liberals' and 'true conservatives' we have, the better.
Those descriptions are how the define each other not themselves. I always find it frustrating that politicos extrapolate an opposing policy idea to the worst possible outcome to indicate what said candidate stands for.
If your pro choice your for killing babies
If your for any government social program at all your for free handouts
Blah Blah Blah...
Guiliani is a fear mongering jack ass. Ron Paul owned him so bad its not even funny but too bad ppl think Ron Paul is the crazy one.
I heard the GOP base extrapolating Ron Paul's stance on abortion to say that he is pro choice when actually he isn't. He's just for states rights no matter what the issue.
I think I'd rather have a few pro-life states than risk handing control of the entire country to the religious right.
3,577
The body count for June just rolled into triple digits, making three consecutive months of 100 or more U.S. casualties. April and May '07 marked the first time that mark was reached in consecutive months, and now we have the first time it has happened in three consecutive months. These three months are the deadliest stretch since the war began years and years ago. For the last ten months the average casualties have been climbing.
Scenes like this have to farging stop. NOW.
(http://pressofatlanticcity-proxy.nandomedia.com/ips_rich_content/947-BentzFuneral_001.jpg)
Al Qaeda as strong as ever (http://www.philly.com/philly/hp/news_top/20070712_Al-Qaeda_as_strong_as_ever_.html)
QuoteU.S. intelligence analysts have concluded that al-Qaeda has rebuilt its operating capability to a level not seen since just before the Sept. 11 attacks, the Associated Press has learned.
The conclusion suggests that the group that launched the most devastating terror attack on the United States has been able to regroup along the Afghan-Pakistani border despite nearly six years of bombings, war, and other tactics aimed at crippling it.
Mission Accomplished
3,611
Bush gave $43 million to Taliban 4 months before 9/11 (http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=3556)
Quote from: MURP on July 14, 2007, 12:39:32 PM
Bush gave $43 million to Taliban 4 months before 9/11 (http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=3556)
Typical blind hatred for Bush...again. ::)
The US gov't was providing fund to the Taliban to fight the "war on drugs" since at least 1998.
http://www.hartford-hwp.com/archives/51/115.html
Typical Bush apologist...again.
The U.S. has so many enemies that they've often backed the perceived-to-be-slightly-not-as-bad entities, a la Saddam Hussein circa early 80's.
That said, this is hilariously awful. I hate the U.S. government increasingly more every day. It seems the more they try to do, the more they farg it up. Libbies like to blame it on Bush and assume government bureaucracies elsewhere function swimmingly, but it's all a bunch of shtein. They suck at what they do, and we pay them handily for it anyway. No accountability at all. The possible winners of the 2008 Presidential election are all part of the farging problem and really aren't even different enough from each other to matter.
But hey, don't take my word for it. Go out there and vote for Obama or Hillary or Edwards or Gore, and watch how much of a hackjob they do on our country with the friendly left-wing Congress.
Couldn't agree more, FF.
Of course, when Bush doesn't abdicate, it won't matter much. Being set up beautifully in the media lately.
"Al Qaeda back to pre-9/11 strength"
"Al Qaeda still targeting US"
"Al Qaeda still trying to get nuclear/bio/chemical weapons"
Something is going to happen in the next 12 months, whether Bin Laden does it or not. Then we can watch the dominoes fall:
-martial law declared.
-statement to the effect "we can't afford a change in power right now", eliminating the election all together.
-Congress balks, so it's dissolved. There will be enough popular and military support after the attack to make it happen.
I've been saying this for years now. And I truly believe it will happen, even though it sounds X-files alarmist.
The real question then is, who's going to do anything about it.
I don't think anyone in this country would stand for democracy being replaced by a totalitarian regime.
Not even hard-core neo-conservative freaks who still support Bush would tolerate that for long.
It's all part of Andy Reid's diabolical master plan for Mormans to rule the world.
Two words: Mitt Romney.
I'm sure most Germans felt the same way in 1939.
With the US history of backing the wrong horse it really has nothing to do with political affiliation. It's really bad advice to each administration by the CIA most likely. Though I don't know for sure so no one assasinate me for thinking it...
:paranoid
Quote from: MadMarchHare on July 14, 2007, 05:26:36 PM
I'm sure most Germans felt the same way in 1939.
First, a technical correction: Hitler became Chancellor in 1933. His power became complete with the Enabling Acts of 1933, and Paul von Hindenburg's death in 1934. By 1939, Hitler was well entrenched.
Now, my more substantive arugment:
Comparing the German condition in the 1930s and the U.S. today is a pretty big stretch. Here are some major differences between the two:
1. At best, Germany was a fledgling democracy when Hitler took over. The Weimar Republic was not initiated until the end of World War I, and did not have over 200 years of successful democratic tradition. The German people were well used to autocratic leaders (Otto von Bismarck, Kaiser Wilhelm). The U.S. Constitution, with a much firmer separation of powers, has a much stronger, more proven base.
2. The German economy was devastated with World War I, and was not helped by the fall fo the rest of the world into the Great Depression. The U.S. economy, while not growing by leaps and bounds, is not nearly as precarious.
3. The German system was geared more towards giving the executive branch enough power to dissolve it. Bush has no constitutuional power over the Congress at all (which I am sure you are well aware of), especially one where the opposing party is in control. The two-party system also is actually a detriment to this end, since Hitler actually had to create a coalition to get control. Bush would have to actually militarily take over the Congress, with quite a few executions of sitting members, to do this.
Of course nothing is impossible. If anything, the Roman Republic's evolution into the Roman Dictatorship (under Caesar) and Empire (under Augustus) would to me be a closer fit to the current American condition. The constiutional system, as bastichized as it's become by the politicians, was truly an inspired work. While allowing that Bush could possibly have delusions of being a new Roman Emperor, I don't personally see it happening. There are too many things lined up against it.
Besides, if Bush was to succeed, Cheney would immediately "take him hunting" and take over for himself.
Quote from: MadMarchHare on July 14, 2007, 05:26:36 PM
I'm sure most Germans felt the same way in 1939.
I'm not necessarily disagreeing with the message but the comparison you're making is almost completely erroneous.
Germany in the 1930's is nothing like American in the first decade of the 21st century. Conditions that made the rise to power of a monster like Hitler are nothing like what we're experiencing today.
Again - it's possible but highly unlikely. A calamity could change all that because in essence security is nothing but a state of mind, but still, unless something happened on a nationwide scale (limited nuclear war, severe biological or chemical attacks, etc.) I don't see a coup d'etat succeeding here.
I appreciate the corrections, Geo. While my dates are wrong, and there are clearly differences between the Germans and our current situation, the fear is still there. Bush likes power, he expects to be abided no matter what. He doesn't give a shtein what anyone (the populace, Dems or Repubs) think. It's hard for me to believe he'll just walk away. And the set up in the last week with all the NIE Al Qaeda reports is sobering to say the least.
Quote from: Geowhizzer on July 14, 2007, 10:41:42 PM
Quote from: ice grillin you on July 14, 2007, 10:25:42 PM
Quote from: Diomedes on July 14, 2007, 01:03:34 PM
Typical Bush apologist...again.
Who is that comment directed towards?
anyone that would have the nerve to call out someone for their blind hatred of bush...the guy is the devil personified...there is no such thing as blind hate for the man...he provides more than enough real life hatred for the next 150 presidents combined
I don't see anyone defending Bush.
I'm sure that most Americans will breathe a sigh of relief on Jan. 20, 2009.
Unless MMH is right...
Hail Augustus Bush?
Besides Iraq, he's sucked fairly equally to many past Presidents. And while Iraq is an abomination, it's not even close to the level of Vietnam yet... so LBJ by default has to get a share of that "worst President" title if you want to hand some to Bush.
Then again, I'm sure some of you superlibs are major fans of Lyndon B, since his "Great Society" was some of the most overstepping Socialist shtein any President has ever tried to push on this country, with the exception of FDR.
The Bush administration sucks, but I'll say it again... any White House that "gets a lot done" ends up farging America. Get the farging government out of my life as much as possible.
Of course Bush won't have a coup d'etat - there will just be a 9/11 scale attack weeks before the inauguration, and the question of continuity will come up. They'll find a way to blow flowers up the public ass...they can make this all look absolutely necessary, and the public has been conditioned to accept it in the name of security.
But I don't think this is necessarily how it will play out. If Rudy gets elected, you can expect more of the same. While Bush might be cranky that he'll have to give up the wheel, the real powers behind the war mongering / fear mongering / power grabbing will still be in control. If you don't think that will be the case, why is Rudy being called "Mr. 9/11"?
If significant change isn't made at the federal level, the economy will continue to tank. US cars are losing market share, and the US dollar is continuing to tank. The US people and US government continue to fall to debt. The government tries to justify this by saying that the growth of the economy is keeping pace with the debt, so our "relative" debt stays the same. BS in any case, but the economy isn't keeping pace - we continue to export manufacturing to China, skilled work is going to immigrants with H1-B visas, about the only stable industry in the US is the service industry: low wage and dependent upon travel and tourism.
What I fear is the collapse of the US economy, resulting in the dollar tanking / extreme inflation. My guess is that if a Bush-like leader is in power when this happens, it is quite possible that the US could invade Canada to "secure our borders against terrorism" - oh, and the US might be able to make use of all that oil in Alberta. (Canada's immigration is open to skilled workers, resulting in a large number of Asian and Middle Eastern immigrants.)
The US needs to fix the US and stop trying to fix countries where has no political or moral authority. Invest in alternative energy and fuels to reduce dependence upon foreign oil. Invest in our technical infrastructure to return the US to leadership in innovation. Reform trade unions so that US can compete with Canada and Mexico for manufacturing jobs.
Who am I kidding? Never going to happen.
Right after 9/11, Guliani and the so-called patriots who supported him floated the idea that he stay past the end of his term "temporarily, of course," to deal with the crisis. The world wouldn't have collapsed if that did happen, but smart folk were rightly scared by how little resistance the idea got from the masses, and Bushfolk were emboldened by the same.
Besides Iraq, he's sucked fairly equally to many past Presidents
lololol..."besides iraq"....i seriously wanna punch you in the face for saying this...im not even joking
iraq = disaster of epic porportions
katrina
he has actually ok'ed arsenic in drinking water
reneging on promises to cap CO2 emissions
promoting torture and abusing the constitution
huge tax breaks to people who dont need them
eliminated americas standing amongst the rest of the world...farg...england doesnt even like us
eliminated clean up requirements for polluting mining and chemical companies
destroyed the countrys financial standing
incompetance regins at every psoition in the govt due to this clowns appointments
i could go on forever
criticisms can be drawn for every single politician who ever had a secret handshake and a midnight meeting in an obscure diner with a mexican guy with a large duffel bag...but bush fargs up the country on BIG ticket items.
sure clinton was slimy too....they all are...but clinton was sex and real estate....they arent so bad
certainly not as bad as raping and pillaging the earth
bush is like a man on fire to see how much damage he can do in the fastest amount of time possible
the country is a car and bush right before he was "elected" snorted a fargin bridge cable line of coke off the dashboard threw the vehicle in reverse and slammed the pedal without adjusting the mirrors
is he as bad as reagan...not sure...but dont EVER lump him in with a clinton or even his own father...theres no comparison in evil btwn bush and other former presidents
Quote from: ice grillin you on July 15, 2007, 09:22:53 AM
Besides Iraq, he's sucked fairly equally to many past Presidents
lololol..."besides iraq"....i seriously wanna punch you in the face for saying this...im not even joking
iraq = disaster of epic porportions
katrina
he has actually ok'ed arsenic in drinking water
reneging on promises to cap CO2 emissions
promoting torture and abusing the constitution
huge tax breaks to people who dont need them
eliminated americas standing amongst the rest of the world...farg...england doesnt even like us
eliminated clean up requirements for polluting mining and chemical companies
destroyed the countrys financial standing
incompetance regins at every psoition in the govt due to this clowns appointments
i could go on forever
criticisms can be drawn for every single politician who ever had a secret handshake and a midnight meeting in an obscure diner with a mexican guy with a large duffel bag...but bush fargs up the country on BIG ticket items.
sure clinton was slimy too....they all are...but clinton was sex and real estate....they arent so bad
certainly not as bad as raping and pillaging the earth
bush is like a man on fire to see how much damage he can do in the fastest amount of time possible
the country is a car and bush right before he was "elected" snorted a fargin bridge cable line of coke off the dashboard threw the vehicle in reverse and slammed the pedal without adjusting the mirrors
is he as bad as reagan...not sure...but dont EVER lump him in with a clinton or even his own father...theres no comparison in evil btwn bush and other former presidents
I know - off topic, but this (http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9A01E2D9173CF933A15750C0A962958260#) is what scares the hell out of my about Rudy Giuliani:
QuoteWe look upon authority too often and focus over and over again, for 30 or 40 or 50 years, as if there is something wrong with authority. We see only the oppressive side of authority. Maybe it comes out of our history and our background. What we don't see is that freedom is not a concept in which people can do anything they want, be anything they can be. Freedom is about authority. Freedom is about the willingness of every single human being to cede to lawful authority a great deal of discretion about what you do.
LOL - why would that surprise you?
Giuliani was honing his Nazi routine 10 years ago in New York.
BTW: This little piece of Newspeak would be comical if it weren't so disturbing:
QuoteFreedom is about authority.
:-D
but he made times square pretty
Hookers, porn & drug dealers >>>>> ESPN Zone.
Quote from: Diomedes on July 14, 2007, 01:03:34 PM
Typical Bush apologist...again.
Seriously...is that all you have left? Whenever someone points out that all the evil in the world did not start with the Bush administration you have to call them an apologist? Thats just pathetic. You are a shell of your former self Dio.
The blind hatred of Bush reminds me of another time...the 1990's. Except that people blindly hated Clinton then. There are plenty of reasons to hate Bush and his administration, but when someone posts a link about a policy that was started PRIOR to the Bush admin but insinuates that Bush personally started it is blind hatred. It was stupid then and its stupid now.
Not for nothing but times change and policies that made sense at one time might not make sense years later. Someone can be just as much at fault for leaving a bad policy in place as creating it.
Quote from: Phanatic on July 16, 2007, 12:59:03 AM
Not for nothing but times change and policies that made sense at one time might not make sense years later. Someone can be just as much at fault for leaving a bad policy in place as creating it.
No one, especially a politician, is allowed to ever re-think something, and god-forbid change their mind. Never!
You don't want to be refered to a flip-flopper, it's a fate worse than burning in hell.
My fault.
Carry on over the cliff then...
For all I know, this email came out of the White House... but it still is a counter-viewpoint we rarely hear.
QuoteSubject:
From Lt. Col. Joe Repya, U.S. Army
U.S. GOING DOWN THE DRAIN
Wed, 11 Jul 2007 12:37:14 EDT
"I'm Tired"
Two weeks ago, as I was starting my sixth month of duty in Iraq , I was forced to return
to the USA for surgery for an injury I sustained prior to my deployment.
With luck, I'll return to Iraq to finish my tour.
I left Baghdad and a war that has every indication that we are winning, to return to a demoralized country
much like the one I returned to in 1971 after my tour in Vietnam.
Maybe it's because I'll turn 60 years old in just four months, but I'm tired.
I'm tired of spineless politicians, both Democrat and Republican who lack the courage, fortitude,
and character to see these difficult tasks through.
I'm tired of the hypocrisy of politicians who want to rewrite history when the going gets tough.
I'm tired of the disingenuous clamor from those that claim they 'Support the Troops' by wanting them
to 'Cut and Run' before victory is achieved.
I'm tired of a mainstream media that can only focus on car bombs and casualty reports because they are too
afraid to leave the safety of their hotels to report on the courage and success our brave men and women are
having on the battlefield.
I'm tired that so many Americans think you can rebuild a dictatorship into a democracy overnight.
I'm tired that so many ignore the bravery of the Iraqi people to go to the voting booth,
and freely elect a Constitution and soon a permanent Parliament.
I'm tired of the so called 'Elite Left' that prolongs this war by giving aid and comfort to our enemy,
just as they did during the Vietnam War.
I'm tired of antiwar protesters showing up at the funerals of our fallen soldiers.
A family who's loved ones gave their life in a just and noble cause, only to be cruelly tormented on the funeral
day by cowardly protesters is beyond shameful.
I'm tired that my generation, the Baby Boom -- Vietnam generation, who have such a weak backbone that
they can't stomach seeing the difficult tasks through to victory.
I'm tired that some are more concerned about the treatment of captives than they are the slaughter,
and beheading of our citizens and allies.
I'm tired that when we find mass graves it is seldom reported by the press, but mistreat a prisoner,
and it is front page news.
Mostly, I'm tired that the people of this great nation didn't learn from history that there is no substitute
for Victory.
Sincerely,
Joe Repya,
Lieutenant Colonel, U. S. Army
101st Airborne Division
I call bullshtein. If you can find one solid definition of "victory" for this situation, there might be some credibility. This is what Iraq and Vietnam have in common - there is no objective, no victory condition, no end in sight.
We so rarely hear the pro war viewpoint, it's like a breath of fresh air.
Probably a bs email but the message has a valid point. There are a lot of good things happening in Iraq, but thats not news that sells. Chaos, mayhem, violence, and missing pretty white girls are what sell news these days.
Quote from: Butchers Bill on July 17, 2007, 05:03:31 PMThere are a lot of good things happening in Iraq...
Whatever you're smoking, pass it this way hippy.
How to make an Angry American (http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=de2_1184562739&p=1)
Quote from: Diomedes on July 17, 2007, 06:08:31 PM
Quote from: Butchers Bill on July 17, 2007, 05:03:31 PMThere are a lot of good things happening in Iraq...
Whatever you're smoking, pass it this way hippy.
While I have never been there, most soldiers that I talk to that have been say the same thing. And a good bit of them don't want us to be there either. As far as the war goes I don't even care anymore. It is my job, so I try not to pay attention much to the politics, reason being both sides are uncompromising idiots.
On a positive note I was at the National Training Center in California for the last month and got to see at least one positive from the war...hot ass Iraqi women. I have to say I now understand why their men keep them under wraps.
its not a war and it never was...we invaded another country
Quote from: Butchers Bill on July 17, 2007, 05:03:31 PM
There are a lot of good things happening in Iraq, but thats not news that sells.
Sure there is. It's like Bermuda, actually.
Congressional Pissing Match (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070718/ap_on_go_co/us_iraq)
Quote from: Jerome99RIP on July 15, 2007, 01:51:31 PM
Hookers, porn & drug dealers >>>>> ESPN Zone.
post of the year
3,653 heroes and counting
what are the Vegas odds on when they reach 4,000?
Quote from: Diomedes on July 31, 2007, 08:49:15 PM
3,653 heroes and counting
what are the Vegas odds on when they reach 4,000?
So I share your general "this war is nonsense" stance. However, a post like this, which seems to sarcastically refer to soldiers giving their lives (for better or worse) as 'heroes', makes me think that you need to be run over by several heavy vehicles.
If you're not being sarcastic by calling them heroes, my apologies, but the fact is that these people are being told to do a job and they are doing it, potentially to their peril, and last thing that they deserve is skinny ass ineffectual hipsters calling them names.
Mock our leaders and war-planners all you want. Few will argue with you, and I will heartily ridicule those that do, but try to rein it in.
Or don't. Ultimately I don't care if you look like a douche. I just hate being embarrassed for people who make fools of themselves.
We're supposed to all get in line behind this ridiculous idea that all soldiers are heroes, especially the ones who die in battle. That's a bunch of bullshtein. Surely a few of them were doing something heroic when they died--people die doing heroic shtein every day all over the place--but for the most part they're just soldiers dying for lies. Their job is to kill people and get killed at the direction of a corrupt government which spoon feeds the rest of us the hero worship Kool Aid from cradle to grave. They've even got people like you pushing it.
I'd rather these soldiers weren't getting killed, but that's as far as I go.
Your hipster ass is doing nothing other than sitting back and casting judgment on people who are tasked with protecting you. If you're comfortable with that then there's nothing more to say.
i dont want any soldiers dying it sickens me everytime one does...and i have the utmost respect for what they do but no more so than a coal miner who dies in a mine accident that was due to the neglience of the mining company
3,707
Great interview...
http://www.comedycentral.com/motherload/index.jhtml?ml_video=92011 (http://www.comedycentral.com/motherload/index.jhtml?ml_video=92011)
(http://www.marcellosendos.ch/comics/ch/1991/02/19910218.gif)
Top 10 companies profiting from Iraq war (http://articles.moneycentral.msn.com/Investing/CompanyFocus/WhosProfitingFromTheIraqWar.aspx?gt1=10328)
3,760
3,800
This month has shown a nice let up in fatalities. "only" 58 so far.
Obviously I'm happy to be back in KC because I love it here and hated life in NC. But more so than that, the job I'm doing now (different than what I did out here before) makes it a lot easier for me to leave work at the end of the day and not have a guilty conscience.
When I was in NC on recruiting duty, obviously many, if not all of the people I recruited would end up going to Iraq. That's something that really took it's toll on me mentally because I simply don't think we're over there defending this country.
Now, my job is basically doing the exact opposite of recruiting. The command that I'm at in KC is the headquarters for the entire inactive reserve component of the Marine Corps. Everyone signs and 8 year contract to enlist but it's broken down into 4 year incriments. 4 yrs active duty, 4 yrs inactive. So if someone gets out after 4 years they still technically belong to the gov't for 4 more years and can be recalled to active duty at any time. My unit is responsible for doing all the recalls.
During the month of September we've got X amount of Marines being recalled and coming out here for screening and possible involuntary activation. My job now is basically to talk to these young men and women about their options......the most important one being that if they volunteer to come back on active duty for a year, they get the option of choosing where they spend that year at. Which means that they can go do a job at any Marine Corps base they want and can specifically request a job that will not require deployment. This will automatically void the possibility of them getting sent back to Iraq/Afghanistan but at the same time it will still count towards their service obligation.
I talk to large groups of Marines each day about this stuff and it really helps me sleep better at night knowing that I'm literally helping these kids dodge the bullet. Most of them have already been over at least 2 times and many of them did 3 deployments in 4 years. As far as I'm concerned, they've done their job. Yeah, some of them may have to put off school for a year or leave their jobs and maybe even leave their families behind but at least they're a hell of a lot safer and will be able to take leave and visit home whenever they want and call home whenever they want.
Needless to say, damn near everyone I talk to now wants to get more info on this stuff and I don't blame them one bit.
3,835
The last couple months have seen a drastic downturn in casualties. August was 84, September dropped to 65 and so far in October only 29. The last time the daily count was below 1.5 was March of '06.
That's a good thing, right?
Wait'll the Turks invade. That should get the numbers back up for you.
Quote from: FastFreddie on October 24, 2007, 07:19:50 AM
That's a good thing, right?
It's less of a bad thing...there's a difference that ain't simply rhetorical.
3,879
Two months running the U.S. has seen drastically reduced casualties compared to years gone by. Perhaps the so-called surge is making it harder for insurgents to conduct business? Or they're tired out and gone to ground? Or they decided Bush was right afterall?
I am by no means a general or an expert, but to me the surge in troops probably has reduced the casualties. It reduces the battle space and allows us to concentrate on smaller areas.
makes sense. one of the big initial flaws in Iraq was that Bush didn't have the balls to put enough people there to secure the joint. that would of course have required a draft, which would have brought a wholesale referendum on his idiotic war because the whole farging country would suddenly have a stake, be forced to pay attention, and many more than in Vietnam would refuse.
anyway, less casaulties is good..
definitely should have been way more troops....but the disasterous move was bremmer wolfie and rummy disabanding the iraqi army....that is where almost all of the insurgents came from
after "invade wrong country," keeping track of which disaster was worse is hard to do, but you got to admit the Bush loyalists made a hugely arrogant tactical mistake by disbanding them...especially given how thin their own resources were
yeah the band of follies is hard to follow...but putting a half million out of work soldiers on the streets of baghdad a month after you took over their country takes the cake
out of their mouths! takes the cake right out of their towelhead mouths! USA! USA!
who wants cake when you can have apple pie
:paranoid
There's a simple solution. Apple crumb cake.
My first roomate in the barracks was killed last week. Army Spc. Johnathan A. Lahmann, 21, Richmond, Ind
Not much to say other than he was a good kid and very generous. He was big into S.H.A.R.P. (Skinheads Against Racial Prejudice). Rest in peace bro.
Really sorry to hear that, Drunk.
That sucks DMF.
Not sure what the running death total in Iraq is right now but when it comes to friends and drinking buddies of mine, that number stands at 19 and probably well into the 30's or 40's for serious combat injuries (loss of limb, etc) Luckily, it's been there for about 6 months now and hasn't changed. Of course, a lot of my friends have been getting out lately too so that probably has something to do with it.
The count is 3,896, and currently averaging less than one death per day, a huge decrease from 5 months ago.
Here is the DoD notice about Johnathan A. Lahmann's death.
http://www.defenselink.mil/releases/release.aspx?releaseid=11548
And here's his Legacy.com page: http://legacy.com/Soldier/Story.aspx?Page=FSStory&PersonID=99528295
The guest book entries are worth browsing.
3,929
25 so far in 2008
I would love to hear some sort of details as to when they plan to stop this "surge" and pare back involvement.
3,980
Low monthly casualties continue..no higher than 40 since September of '07. Seven so far this month, 76 so far this year. To put that in perspective, there have been 20 or so individual months with greater than 76 killed since BushCheney kicked this clusterfarg off FIVE fargING YEARS AGO
I don't know if that's good news or bad news.
Well, less dying is good.
The so-calles Surge, putting more troops on the ground is surely increasing security for everyone, and thereby reducing casualties. But the downturn in violence which was coincidental with the Surge also coincided with Al-Sadr's cease fire. One would hope that whatever is keeping Al Sadr pre-occupied--he's undertaken studies to become an ayatollah iirc--continues to function in that capacity because it ain't just the G.I. Joe's on corners that are keeping the violence down..
Quote from: Diomedes on March 10, 2008, 02:30:22 PM
Well, less dying is good.
The so-calles Surge, putting more troops on the ground is surely increasing security for everyone, and thereby reducing casualties. But the downturn in violence which was coincidental with the Surge also coincided with Al-Sadr's cease fire. One would hope that whatever is keeping Al Sadr pre-occupied--he's undertaken studies to become an ayatollah iirc--continues to function in that capacity because it ain't just the G.I. Joe's on corners that are keeping the violence down..
True.
I guess my concern is that the "surge" is more expensive than the national budget can truly support long-term, so I wonder how Bush plans on actually scaling back.
Then again, I guess at this point he is most likely to keep it up and make it the next President's problem.
The U.S. cannot afford the war before the Surge, much less after it. The dollar is not weak for no reason...it's backed by China thanks to Bush's war. Nevermind the evils of welfare...warfare is bankrupting the nation.
Quote from: Diomedes on March 10, 2008, 02:36:04 PM
Nevermind the evils of welfare...warfare is bankrupting the nation.
There's no way that snippet is a
Dio original.
Quote from: Diomedes on March 10, 2008, 02:36:04 PM
The U.S. cannot afford the war before the Surge, much less after it. The dollar is not weak for no reason...it's backed by China thanks to Bush's war. Nevermind the evils of welfare...warfare is bankrupting the nation.
Amen. I mean WORD
Quote from: FastFreddie on March 10, 2008, 02:46:24 PM
Quote from: Diomedes on March 10, 2008, 02:36:04 PM
Nevermind the evils of welfare...warfare is bankrupting the nation.
There's no way that snippet is a Dio original.
If I stole it, I don't know who from.
It sounds like it could come from Ron Paul or Mike Gravel (both of whom have not conceded defeat in their respective primaries).
They're welcome to lay claim to it...
but I'm hanging onto the rights to the idea of a countrywide fleet of rolling abortion clinic RVs called Utero-Rooter...
"only two requirements for our services: 1.) you're pregant and 2.) you don't wanna be."
that one is my idea an no one elses
Noted, and agreed.
I'm not sure whether to go the non profit route, or try to turn a buck on it
Quote from: Diomedes on March 10, 2008, 03:25:42 PM
They're welcome to lay claim to it...
but I'm hanging onto the rights to the idea of a countrywide fleet of rolling abortion clinic RVs called Utero-Rooter...
"only two requirements for our services: 1.) you're pregant and 2.) you don't wanna be."
that one is my idea an no one elses
Greatest. Idea. Ever.
I think the surge is working from a military perspective. Unfortunatly from a political perspective it's a cluster farg. So we'll keep paying the bill.
Unless....
Senate Committee Seeks Audit of Iraq Oil Money
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/09/world/middleeast/09iraq.html?_r=1&oref=slogin (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/09/world/middleeast/09iraq.html?_r=1&oref=slogin)
Five U.S. soldiers die in Baghdad bomb blast
Mon Mar 10, 2008 11:19am EDT
BAGHDAD (Reuters) - Five U.S. soldiers were killed and three others wounded in a bomb blast in central Baghdad on Monday, the U.S. military said, in the worst single attack on U.S. forces in Baghdad in months.
An Iraqi interpreter was also wounded in the explosion, which hit the soldiers while they were on foot patrol, the military said in a statement.
Iraqi police said the soldiers had been walking in the street in Mansour district when a suicide bomber wearing an explosives vest walked up to them and blew himself up.
A police official at Baghdad's Yarmouk hospital said nine wounded Iraqis had been admitted, including a policeman. They had spoken of a suicide bomber who had exploded among the Americans, he said.
The U.S. military said four soldiers were killed in the blast and one died later of wounds. It did not confirm the cause of the explosion.
"We remain resolute in our resolve to protect the people of Iraq and kill or capture those who would bring them harm," said Colonel Allen Batschelet, chief of staff of U.S. forces in Baghdad.
Quote"We remain resolute in our resolve to protect the people of Iraq and kill or capture those who would bring them harm," said Colonel Allen Batschelet, chief of staff of U.S. forces in Baghdad.
I'm sure those will be warm and comforting sentiments to the families of the five butchered soldiers.
"resolute in our resolve"
Surely it's reassuring that the colonel is confident in his confidence.
He'll warrant a promotion when he can work the word resolution as a noun into the same sentence.
All he has to do is start capitalizing it.
Sgt. Phillip R. Anderson, 28, of Everett, Wash.
Spc. Donald A. Burkett, 24, of Comanche, Texas.
Capt. Torre R. Mallard, 27, of Oklahoma.
Three men that were in our Regiment that died earlier this week. I did not know any of them personally, but I did work with Captain Mallards Troop before. If his men are a reflection of him he was a good man.
Sucks.
here's the DoD link to the notice DMF refers to:
http://www.defenselink.mil/releases/release.aspx?releaseid=11755
I go to my 40th 1st Cav Reunion this June. Very difficult to see these young brave soldiers personsly paying for bad politicos :boo
4,000
uh oh
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7311565.stm
Here it comes.
Of course at Easter dinner lastnight the fam got into the old heated Presidential debate. The right wing religous nut of the group claims war is ALWAYS necessary because it brings peace....regardless of the cause. You just can't make this shtein up.
4,018
people gettin smoked in the green zone
the mighty U.S. can't even keep the green zone safe from ragtag militants...maybe it's time to rethink this whole "war is good" foreign policy
WAR is PEACE
Weren't you taking notes?
Bush freezes troop withdrawls. (http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20080410/ts_nm/iraq_dc_52;_ylt=AukKElVz7djCCtrXfn2dR8oE1vAI)
Just more of the same from that retarded cowboy icehole.
someone needs to make his drunken whore daughters go over there
On a positive note, they reduced deployments back to only 12 months as of August 1. Unfortunately for me that doesn't help the guys that are already here, we still have to finish out our full deployment.
I will say this the addition of troops has helped Mosul, the last 3 weeks we have seen a drastic drop in violence. Much of that is due to the fact they are attacking IA and IPs.
It really sucks for doods who are deploying in late July. They still pull 15 months.
Quote from: Diomedes on April 10, 2008, 05:26:16 PM
It really sucks for doods who are deploying in late July. They still pull 15 months.
That all depends what there orders say, it is definately a fine line though.
What I've read is pretty clear...Aug. 1 or later deploy date...12 months.
Anything prior, 15
Quote from: Diomedes on April 10, 2008, 05:37:38 PM
What I've read is pretty clear...Aug. 1 or later deploy date...12 months.
Anything prior, 15
Well that is not exactly how it works. Plus even my orders say a deployment of up to 455 days, there is a good chance we won't be here all 15 months. I of course am not holding my breath, I do know the unit we relieved was supposed to do 15 but it ended up being 13. Also July is not a big month for deployments.
but...but...NPR said!
Thank God for that war we started (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080430/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/us_terrorism_report)
4,063
51 this month, by far the highest toll since September of 2007
we are wrecking shop in sadr city and its probably days before the clerk calls off his cease fire which means death totals will start shooting up again and its why they kind of already are...i feel so bad for the soldiers over there....the end game is there is no end game...
I read today that Bush just earned the lowest approval ratings of any modern president.
I don't understand this, because it was only five years ago, today, that he demonstrated how much of a war hero he was (unlike phonies like John Kerry, of course)...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-GJUGUYsm68
that farger should be dragged in front of the hague and tried for war crimes.
stick em in guantanamo
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DSIrSNf0m7Q
stop posting youtubes without saying what they are...theres a good chance even if you do that no one is opening them theres no chance if you dont
Yesterday my Company took its first KIA. SPC Alex Gonzalez 22 from Texas. He was killed by a RPG and from what I understand it was pretty gruesome. His squad leader also got pretty banged up and almost lost his left leg. These guys were in my old platoon before I got promoted to Sgt. When I saw them yesterday it took everything I had to choke back the tears. I am not here to get any bullshtein sympathy either, I just want to give some names to the numbers.
Just come back in one piece dude.
Today we had Gonzo's memorial, it was probably the saddest thing that I have ever been a part of. It was an outstanding tribute to a soldier. I have never witnessed so many grown men cry or cried that much myself. It was the first time I ever heard taps played for someone I really knew, I will never forget it. There was a lot of people there to honor that young man, even the Iraqi PM. I hope I never have to go to one of those again. RIP Gonzo.
damn brother my thoughts are with you and your squad man. stay strong brotha
4,077
Quote from: Diomedes on May 13, 2008, 10:33:31 PM
4,077
(http://www.mikesplace.com/pics/dearsis.jpg)
(http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3012/2522544597_6a5ff3e122_o.jpg)
I don't know about anyone else but pictures like that piss me off. Young kids are dying needlessly in a shteinhole and for what?
BRING.
THEM.
HOME.
NOW!
not to be an ass, but is taht a dude?
Barely.
why is he bawling before he dies and not after
he's the prime beneficiary on his brother's $400k sgli policy?
i was thinking more along the lines of him getting all his playstation games
Quote from: ice grillin you on May 28, 2008, 01:47:25 PM
i was thinking more along the lines of him getting all his playstation games
defintely not the porn collection, he would be crying in that one
theres a war going on?
theres a war goin on outside no man is safe from....you could run but you cant hide forever from these streets that we done took....you walkin with your head down and too scared to look...you shook cause aint no such things as halfway crooks
do you know what gentrification is?
like gentrify yo bonds stillupfront's mom?
It's what happens when property value of a certain area is brought down. They bring the property value down. They can buy the land cheaper. Then they move the people out, raise the value and sell it at a profit. What we need to do is keep everything in our neighborhood, everything, black. Black-owned with black money. Just like the Jews, the Italians, the Mexicans and the Koreans do.
i cant believe you actually just tried to explain what gentrification is to me
did you finally see boyz in the hood last night or something?
MDS doesn't have to see it. He lives it every farging day.
Quote from: ice grillin you on May 28, 2008, 07:35:12 PM
i cant believe you actually just tried to explain what gentrification is to me
did you finally see boyz in the hood last night or something?
is that some kind of rap video or something?
Mission accomplished... again? (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/05/29/AR2008052904116_pf.html)
4,092
May '08 had the lowest U.S. body count (19) of the entire 5+ year war.
8 have already been killed in June.
So Israel apparently wants to bomb Iran, Oil has risen nearly $11 just today. Honestly full scale nuclear war appears inevitable, Israel is going to be the downfall of the world. Once they attack Iran, Iran attacks back, US is stuck in Iraq and should not get involved, problem is if they go to withdraw from Iraq. Iran takes Iraq. Sucks to play Risk in the real time.
Iraq: 4,110
Afghanistan: 531
Quote from: Diomedes on June 26, 2008, 06:21:10 AM
Iraq: 4,110
Afghanistan: 531
I'm really hoping Afghanistan makes some good halftime adjustments.
Quote from: Diomedes on June 26, 2008, 06:21:10 AM
Iraq: 4,110
Afghanistan: 531
Quiz:
1) Which country is hosting/borders the country hosting the terrorists responsible for 9/11?
2) Which country has the most Oil?
3) Which of the above two causes is the higher priority for US corporate interests?
saudi arabia?
Quote from: ice grillin you on June 26, 2008, 09:16:08 AM
saudi arabia?
Best answer. Too bad the U.S. is in bed with them.
Quote from: Cerevant on June 26, 2008, 09:09:43 AM
Quote from: Diomedes on June 26, 2008, 06:21:10 AM
Iraq: 4,110
Afghanistan: 531
Quiz:
1) Which country is hosting/borders the country hosting the terrorists responsible for 9/11?
2) Which country has the most Oil?
3) Which of the above two causes is the higher priority for US corporate interests?
The US, Canada is our real enemy
At least we're not going to war with North Korea anytime soon (http://apnews.myway.com/article/20080626/D91HPNB80.html).
Unfortunately, this move dates "Team America: World Police."
"WE WENT TO WAR FOR THE OIL COMPANIES" Kucinich Tells Congress (http://www.sloshspot.com/blog/06-24-2008/Ten-Cool-and-Free-Magic-Bar-Tricks-23)
QuoteDemands Bush Administration and Oil Company Execs be Held Accountable
Washington, DC (June 26, 2008)-- US Representative Dennis J. Kucinich, in a speech to the House of Representatives today, tied the secret meetings of the Cheney Energy Task Force to the recent award of non-competitive oil contracts in Iraq and said that both the Bush Administration and the oil company executives who participated in those meetings in 2001 should be held criminally liable for an illegal war and extortion of Iraq's oil.
"In March of 2001, when the Bush Administration began to have secret meetings with oil company executives from Exxon, Shell and BP, spreading maps of Iraq oil fields before them, the price of oil was $23.96 per barrel. Then there were 63 companies in 30 countries, other than the US, competing for oil contracts with Iraq.
"Today the price of oil is $135.59 per barrel, the US Army is occupying Iraq and the first Iraq oil contracts will go, without competitive bidding to, surprise, (among a very few others) Exxon, Shell and BP.
"Iraq has between 200 – 300 billion barrels of oil with a market value in the tens of trillions of dollars. And our government is trying to force Iraq not only to privatize its oil, but to accept a long-term US military presence to guard the oil and protect the profits of the oil companies while Americans pay between $4 and $5 a gallon for gas, while our troops continue dying.
"We attacked a nation that did not attack us. Over 4000 of our troops are dead. Over 1,000,000 innocent Iraqis have perished. The war will cost US taxpayers between $2 - $3 trillion dollars. Our nation's soul is stained because we went to war for the oil companies and their profits. There must be accountability not only with this Administration for its secret meetings and its open illegal warfare but also for the oil company executives who were willing participants in a criminal enterprise of illegal war, the deaths of our soldiers and innocent Iraqis and the extortion of the national resources of Iraq.
"We have found the weapon of mass destruction in Iraq. It is oil. As long as the oil companies control our government Americans will continue to pay and pay, with our lives, our fortunes our sacred honor," he concluded.
Here,here
Quote"We have found the weapon of mass destruction in Iraq. It is oil. As long as the oil companies control our government Americans will continue to pay and pay, with our lives, our fortunes our sacred honor," he concluded.
Wow. Good stuff.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080702/ap_on_go_pr_wh/bush
Casualties are slowing in Iraq, so he wants to send troops back to where the war should have been fought all along?
THE HORROR!
i was watching the Jon Stewart show last night, they had the clip of bush saying too many bad natural disasters occured over his office. Some people in the crowd actually yelled out.. awww, and it actually sounded sincere..lol He f'd up this country and the countries abroad either way you look at it.
"we had a bad month in afghanistan"
lol
Quote from: ice grillin you on July 03, 2008, 01:25:27 AM
"we had a bad month in afghanistan"
lol
My old roommate Billy aka shellback (igy you gave him a beer at the Seahawks tailgate) was sent to southern Afghanistan where U.S. Intelligence believes much of the Taliban has fled. He called me a few nights ago while I was at my cousin's wedding...said it's been pretty quiet. Then I got this email this morning:
Quoteour outpost got attacked 2 nights ago. It happened around 1am. farging freaky, dude. A farging RPG came through a mud wall right where I used to sleep and slammed into a stack of MRE's in the Staff NCO tent where I sleep. We're on pretty high alert every night now. Gotta love war.
is that the illegal box cat?
Different guy, little bit more on the chubby side. It was a little later in the day and I think you were a little further in the tank. We only stopped by for a few minutes. Weather was zesty that day.
Kucinich plagiarized Thomas Jefferson lock, stock and barrel with that last quote.
Good stuff otherwise, though.
Quote from: SD_Eagle on July 03, 2008, 11:24:16 AM
Quote from: ice grillin you on July 03, 2008, 01:25:27 AM
"we had a bad month in afghanistan"
lol
My old roommate Billy aka shellback (igy you gave him a beer at the Seahawks tailgate) was sent to southern Afghanistan where U.S. Intelligence believes much of the Taliban has fled. He called me a few nights ago while I was at my cousin's wedding...said it's been pretty quiet. Then I got this email this morning:
Quoteour outpost got attacked 2 nights ago. It happened around 1am. farging freaky, dude. A farging RPG came through a mud wall right where I used to sleep and slammed into a stack of MRE's in the Staff NCO tent where I sleep. We're on pretty high alert every night now. Gotta love war.
Holy shtein, that's crazy!
Iraq Vet Made Famous By Photo Dies Of Drug Overdose...
http://www.crooksandliars.com/2008/07/06/iraq-vet-made-famous-by-photo-dies-of-drug-overdose/
Bush admin looking to pull troops from Iraq, likely redeploy to Afghanistan. (http://www.iht.com/articles/2008/07/13/america/13military.php)
^ This is not news.
"Good" news (http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=080731124350.si8k6wlc&show_article=1)
Still soldiers dying, thankfully at a greatly reduced rate.
Guy I know sent me a military assessment of Afghanistan and I think it is very informative. Here's a part of it.
Quote4. THE BOTTOM LINE: SIX ASSERTIONS.
1. Afghanistan is in misery. 68% of the population has never known peace. Life expectancy is 44 years. It has the
second highest maternal mortality rate in the world: One of six pregnant Afghan women dies for each live birth.
Terrorist incidents and main force insurgent violence is rising (34% increase this year in kinetic events.) Battle
action and casualties are now much higher in Afghanistan for US forces than they are in Iraq. The Afghan
government at provincial and district level is largely dysfunctional and corrupt. The security situation (2.8
million refugees); the economy (unemployment 40% and rising, extreme poverty 41%, acute food shortages,
inflation 12% and rising, agriculture broken); the giant heroin/opium criminal enterprise ($4 billion and 800
metric tons of heroin); and Afghan governance are all likely to get worse in the coming 24 months.
2. The magnificent, resilient Afghan people absolutely reject the ideology and violence of the Taliban (90% or
greater) but have little faith in the ability of the government to provide security, justice, clean water, electricity, or
jobs. Much of Afghanistan has great faith in US military forces, but enormous suspicion of the commitment and
staying power of our NATO allies.
3. The courageous and determined NATO Forces (the employable forces are principally US, Canadian, British,
Polish, and Dutch) and the Afghan National Army (the ANA is a splendid success story) cannot be defeated in
battle. They will continue to slaughter the Pashtun insurgents, criminals, and international terrorist syndicates
who directly confront them. (7000+ killed during 2007 alone.) The Taliban will increasingly turn to terrorism
directed against the people and the Afghan National Police. However, the atmosphere of terror cannot be
countered by relying mainly on military means. We cannot win through a war of attrition. The economic and
political support provided by the international community is currently inadequate to deal with the situation.
4. 2009 will be the year of decision. The Taliban and a greatly enhanced foreign fighter presence will: strike
decisive blows against selected NATO units; will try to erase the FATA and Baluchi borders with Afghanistan;
will try to sever the road networks and stop the construction of new roads (Route # 1 -- the Ring Road from Kabul
to Kandahar is frequently now interdicted); and will try to strangle and isolate the capital. Without more effective
and non-corrupt Afghan political leadership at province and district level, Afghanistan may become a failed state
hosting foreign terrorist communities with global ambitions. Afghan political elites are focused more on the
struggle for power than governance.
5. US unilateral reinforcements driven by US Defense Secretary Bob Gates have provided additional Army and
Marine combat forces and significant enhanced training and equipment support for Afghan security forces. This
has combined with greatly increased US nation-building support (PRT's, road building, support for the Pakistani
Armed Forces, etc.) to temporarily halt the slide into total warfare. The total US outlay in Afghanistan this year
will be in excess of $34 billion: a burn rate of more than $2.8 billion per month. However, there has been no
corresponding significant effort by the international community. The skillful employment of US Air Force,
Army, and Naval air power (to include greatly expanded use of armed and reconnaissance UAV's : Predator,
Reaper, Global hawk, and Shadow) has narrowly prevented the Taliban from massing and achieving local tactical
victories over isolated and outnumbered US and coalition forces in the East and South.
6. There is no unity of command in Afghanistan. A sensible coordination of all political and military elements of the
Afghan theater of operations does not exist. There is no single military headquarters tactically commanding all
US forces. All NATO military forces do not fully respond to the NATO ISAF Commander because of extensive
national operational restrictions and caveats. In theory, NATO ISAF Forces respond to the (US) SACEUR...but
US Forces in ISAF (half the total ISAF forces are US) respond to the US CENTCOM commander. However, US
Special Operations Forces respond to US SOCOM.....not (US) SACEUR or US CENTCOM. There is no
accepted Combined NATO-Afghan military headquarters. There is no clear political governance relationship
organizing the government of Afghanistan, the United Nations and its many Agencies, NATO and its political and
military presence, the 26 Afghan deployed allied nations, the hundreds of NGO's, and private entities and
contractors. There is little formal dialog between the government and military of Pakistan and Afghanistan,
except that cobbled together by the US Forces in Regional Command East along the Pakistan frontier.
"A generation shaped by Vietnam must remember the lessons of Vietnam: When America uses force in the world, the cause must be just, the goal must be clear, and the victory must be overwhelming"
- George W. Bush, at his acceptance speech at the 2000 Republican National Convention
Quote from: Dubya
the cause must be just
Well, it certainly started out that way.
Quote from: Dubya
the goal must be clear
Mission accomplished! But seriously, is there a goal anymore? When was the goal lost? 2003?
Quote from: Dubya
the victory must be overwhelming
"Not gonna happen."
I wonder what countries are supplying weapons to terrorists in afghan....pakistan, iran...russia...china???
North Korea obviously. Actually they did supply Iran with missles, i would say its Nick Cage
Russia is trying to fight off civil war, they are not going to be throwing around weapons to rogue terrorist groups at this point.
Quote from: FastFreddie on August 04, 2008, 08:38:25 AM
Quote from: Dubya
the cause must be just
Well, it certainly started out that way.
You mean using false/misleading/intentionally mis-interpreted intelligence to convince the public it was a just cause? Not sure I agree.
The initial cause of starting the "war" was to retaliate for the single-largest attack on civilians in the history of the world. That was plenty just.
Quote from: FastFreddie on August 05, 2008, 09:18:09 AM
The initial cause of starting the "war" was to retaliate for the single-largest attack on civilians in the history of the world. That was plenty just.
wat?
so would it have been just to have attacked madagascar after 911 because they had as much to do with the attacks as iraq
Im hoping FF means Afghanistan operations
Exactly. I'm talking about the start of the "War on Terror."
everyone on here agrees that Iraq was a stupid operation, but Afghanistan was completely warranted.
I've said all along that I was in favor of flushing out Saddam. Of course, the whole setting up a new government thing has proven to be much more problematic and painful. Then, there's all the oil bullshtein that got tied up in the effort.
It's a wasteful and extremely messy war, and it was waged based on lies.
Sorry for the confusion. To clarify:
The War on Terror is a convenient fiction to justify unilateral action by the present administration.
The War in Afghanistan is a just war being waged against those responsible for the attacks on 9/11.
The War in Iraq is an unjust war entered in under false pretenses, without clear goals (or at least shifting goals), and as a result there are no clear measures for "victory", making victory impossible.
Quote from: Cerevant on August 05, 2008, 12:18:10 PM
Sorry for the confusion. To clarify:
The War on Terror is a convenient fiction to justify unilateral action by the present administration.
The War in Afghanistan is a just war being waged against those responsible for the attacks on 9/11.
The War in Iraq is an unjust war entered in under false pretenses, without clear goals (or at least shifting goals), and as a result there are no clear measures for "victory", making victory impossible.
I'll second that.
The thing about the Iraq war is that there were real reasons to make it just. They just didn't think they were strong enough so they made shtein up.
Quote from: Phanatic on August 05, 2008, 12:35:15 PM
The thing about the Iraq war is that there were real reasons to make it just. They just didn't think they were strong enough so they made shtein up.
Exactly. There were enough human rights issues alone to garner support and usurping mad men as leaders has never been frowned upon. But they made up other reasons instead, had no clear objective and no withdrawl plan. Clusterfarged from the go.
there was zero real justification to invade and occupy iraq
none
Quote from: ice grillin you on August 05, 2008, 03:39:23 PM
there was zero real justification to invade and occupy Iraq
none
Iraq was already a rogue state with our military constantly keeping them at bay for the 10 years before Gulf war II as dictated by the UN. The Iraqi military in my time of patrolling the no fly zones moved SAM sites below the parallels and took shots at patrolling aircraft all the time. The UN created the most ridiculous solution because Bush and Cheney I didn't have the balls to go in there and finish the job. Then Bush Cheney II comes in and think they can finish off the job on the cheap because Iraq would be like rebuilding of Germany and Japan after WWII. They actually said that, believed it, and were somehow re-elected for it. Idiots!
im guessing theres lots of "rogue" nations who would take shots at our aircraft if we perputually flew over their country
when they invaded kuwait i wouldnt have had a problem going to baghdad but in 03 there was no justification whatsoever...but if someone wants to spin it to say that there was justification to go in 2003 then iraq probably wasnt even in the top 10 countries we could have most justifed taking over
Quote from: ice grillin you on August 05, 2008, 04:43:42 PM
im guessing theres lots of "rogue" nations who would take shots at our aircraft if we perputually flew over their country
when they invaded kuwait i wouldnt have had a problem going to baghdad but in 03 there was no justification whatsoever...but if someone wants to spin it to say that there was justification to go in 2003 then iraq probably wasnt even in the top 10 countries we could have most justifed taking over
I can not disagree more. We were there as part of a UN mandate. They were flaunting the mandate. At the very least the world community should have been outraged but instead dragged feet and did nothing making the UN an absolutly useless entity. To sit there and act like the Iraqi government was this innocent thing and we had no business there is complete bullshtein.
I should also point out that they weren't just shooting at US aircraft during this time as the patrols were under the UN. They were French and English in the early 90's before the French left.
no one is saying saadam was an angel but there was way worse govts then and now than saadam hussien
and if it was a UN mandate then let the UN practice destroying and occupying nations...id support the united states contributing a few thousand peace keeping troops to the un's cause
So either way we'd still have troops in Iraq. Whether that was to patrol the no fly zones to keep Saddam from ethnically cleansing the Shiites and Kurds or as UN troops on the ground.
Also if this was done the right way from the start it wouldn't be as painful and we wouldn't be talking about it.
im not against having troops around the world...im against arbitrarily and unilaterally invading destroying and occupying whole nations and doing so primarily with our troops and on our dime
and really, there's simply no need for so many goddamned foreign bases...more than 700 of them, give me a break. You want to talk about big government..farg.
US and Iraq close to deal to withdraw troops (http://apnews.myway.com/article/20080822/D92N9EN00.html)
Hey, good news is news too.
So, would the end of the Iraq war help Obama ("see, I was right!") or hurt him by taking away a key point of distinction from McCain?
IMO, hurt, bush gets most the credit for that by saying we went in kicked some a$$. I spoke to america with a bunch of teletubbies behind me on an aircraft carrier, announcing that the war was over, and then years later we signed a deal to get our boys home all while I was in office. Now that would sound a lot better if Frank Caliende (sp) was saying it then bush.
QuoteI spoke to america with a bunch of teletubbies behind me on an aircraft carrier
I love telletubbies.
Regarding Bush's apparent reversal over a timeline (but don't call it that - anything but that), I'm sure it's completely coincidental that he's finally coming around to Obama's position now that election season is upon us. This isn't the sort of President who mixes politics with things like national security, right?
Quote from: Cerevant on August 25, 2008, 10:48:50 AM
So, would the end of the Iraq war help Obama ("see, I was right!") or hurt him by taking away a key point of distinction from McCain?
Good question. I think it will hurt him a bit, but he has plenty of other issues to get to.
What Obama could do to put himself over the edge easily would be to better tout himself as a bi-partisan leader, willing to make tough compromises to balance the budget and improve the economy long-term. McCain is currently holding his own in the economy debate somehow, and I think if Obama shows that McCain's plan will either keep the country irresponsibly running a deficit or cut numerous popular entitlements to the bone, he'll win.
But what do I know. I care about fiscal policy more than the average American.
Back to Iraq - I think that in all likelihood, this just makes Iraq less of a talking point for the campaign in general. However, McCain will continue to try to mention that the surge, which he invented around the time Algore invented the internets, worked.
The Economy and high gas prices will be the talking points going forward. Getting this deal takes it off the table and takes away an argument point for Obama. I think it does hurt him a bit in the realm of politics. Doesn't matter though. It's a good thing and it's what we all wanted anyway.
By the way, nobody here actually believes the Bush administration when they say that maybe we can have our troops out in a year and a half (or however). For the past six years they've been doing or saying anything to anyone just so long as they can keep them in there. If McCain is elected we'll be hearing the same crap four years from now. Is there anyone here that actually believes this shtein?
I believe that regardless of any actual plans they had, their political plan was to leave soldiers out long enough for McCain to pick up preemptive credit for bringing them home.
4,147
Oh I think they want and need the troops out of Iraq. Mainly because they need them in Georgia and Afghanistan now. Russia did whatever it wanted to Georgia knowing full well America was stretched to thin to do anything about it and NATO was to french.
Interesting article on a "agreed" pull out time table:
http://www.reuters.com/article/GCA-GCA-iraq/idUSLP67913620080826?pageNumber=3&virtualBrandChannel=10112 (http://www.reuters.com/article/GCA-GCA-iraq/idUSLP67913620080826?pageNumber=3&virtualBrandChannel=10112)
http://www.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/meast/09/09/iraq.secret/index.html
Terminators are real
4,158
The pace is slow but steady still.
Iraq vets and post-traumatic stress: No easy answers
http://www.cnn.com/2008/HEALTH/conditions/10/24/ptsd.struggle/index.html (http://www.cnn.com/2008/HEALTH/conditions/10/24/ptsd.struggle/index.html)
Buddy of mine is/was a blackhawk pilot and did tours in Afghanistan and Iraq. He was shot down in Iraq I think and is being discharged for post traumatic stress. Those that survive aren't completly whole when they get back. War is hell...
4,186
Geez Dio, I can't help but have your posting get to me. I'm not saying you should stop. I really don't know what I'm saying, which fits most my post.
Everytime that number gets bigger, it wrenches my gut. A acquaintance in my neighborhood has a son who is a Marine in Iraq. He's pretty fanatical about it and his father says he's having the time of his life. I shake my head at that. I don't think he or anyone in his family thinks about how close he could be to being one of those numbers.
This is a farged up world we live in when a person can be at war having the time of his life.
Useless & meaningless deaths for corporate profits should make you sick to your stomach.
I find that many people have no idea how many U.S. soldiers have been killed in Iraq. People guess numbers between 2 and 7 thousand when I ask them.
Nevermind how many have been injured, or how many Iraqi civilians have died.
Bush Cheney did a sickening job executing a war without involving the people with his no-draft, all volunteer, mercenary-augmented plan. So few people have a direct stake in it that they're happy to just go shopping and not think about it.
While I agree, I sure as hell don't want to see my son drafted to die in a bullshtein war so oil execs can increase their profit margins.
Which is exactly why the draft was never an option to Bush Cheney. They don't want you to have a stake because you might do something crazy like encourage your boy to dodge the draft, or protest the war, or possibly even organize people against it.
Without a direct connection, you are much less willing to oppose the war in a meaningful way. Without a draft, the government doesn't have to explain why so many are dodging it.
Without a draft, the Bush Cheney gang could do whatever they want with the military. And boy, did they.
If a draft was instituted and all deferments were disallowed the war would be over in exactly 10 minutes.
Congress would not vote to reinstate the draft, because it would cause 75% of them the next election.
The Draft is a neat idea to make those that would wage war accountable but it isn't realistic. I prefer realistic goals that can actually be accomplished to conceptual pipe dreams.
The draft should be mandatory during wartime. And during peacetime, some kind of service should be mandatory, either civil or military.
Not going to happen. People won't support it.
People can suck my meatcicle. This prima donna nation needs to learn how to serve and work again.
Will that be an option along with civil and military service?
Yep. You can serve in the military, you can serve at home, or you can work the chain gang in prison.. Three awesome options for a better country.
People suck and are hard to deal with in general.
I mean Dio you yourself are just a barrel of sunshine...
More like a bucket of shtein, but have it your way.
Yesterday our Company was awarded the Combat Action Streamer that means that over 70% of the Company has been in direct contact with the enemy, in our case it is over 80%. It is an award that a unit can only receive once, this unit has been here two times before and did not get it. A lot of guys that are in my unit have been here 2-3 times and they said they saw more action in our first two weeks than they did in all of there other deployments combined.
Our unit will also be receiving a Valorous Unit Citation. We have done so much since we have been here it is unreal. It never really hit me until this morning when our Squadron Commander was giving a speech to our Company. He spoke about the legacy that we are leaving behind. It was a very humbling experience, makes missing out on the celebration back home worth while. I just thought I would share my thoughts, this isn't the type of thing that most of you will see on the news.
Quote from: Drunkmasterflex on October 30, 2008, 03:12:08 AM
Yesterday our Company was awarded the Combat Action Streamer that means that over 70% of the Company has been in direct contact with the enemy, in our case it is over 80%. It is an award that a unit can only receive once, this unit has been here two times before and did not get it. A lot of guys that are in my unit have been here 2-3 times and they said they saw more action in our first two weeks than they did in all of there other deployments combined.
Our unit will also be receiving a Valorous Unit Citation. We have done so much since we have been here it is unreal. It never really hit me until this morning when our Squadron Commander was giving a speech to our Company. He spoke about the legacy that we are leaving behind. It was a very humbling experience, makes missing out on the celebration back home worth while. I just thought I would share my thoughts, this isn't the type of thing that most of you will see on the news.
Thats awesome DMF
Quote from: Drunkmasterflex on October 30, 2008, 03:12:08 AM
Yesterday our Company was awarded the Combat Action Streamer that means that over 70% of the Company has been in direct contact with the enemy, in our case it is over 80%. It is an award that a unit can only receive once, this unit has been here two times before and did not get it. A lot of guys that are in my unit have been here 2-3 times and they said they saw more action in our first two weeks than they did in all of there other deployments combined.
Our unit will also be receiving a Valorous Unit Citation. We have done so much since we have been here it is unreal. It never really hit me until this morning when our Squadron Commander was giving a speech to our Company. He spoke about the legacy that we are leaving behind. It was a very humbling experience, makes missing out on the celebration back home worth while. I just thought I would share my thoughts, this isn't the type of thing that most of you will see on the news.
That's amazing, dude. Now get your ass home.
Marine motorcycle deaths top their Iraq combat fatalities (http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/10/30/marine.motorcycles/index.html?eref=rss_topstories)
This is nuts, someone needs to teach these guys how to ride.
4,205
7 in our AO and at least 3 from our Regiment over the past two weeks. 3 of those were accidents.
AO? Accidents like what? Someone got ran over? A helicopter crashed?
I think "AO" stands for Area of Operations.
Whatever, though. The numbers continue to be absolutely appalling including Iraqi civilian casualties.
Bush should be hauled in front of the Hague for what he's done.
you do realize iraqis are killing iraqis and outside terrorists are targeting iraqi citizens not just our troops.
AO is area of operation
2 died in a helicopter crash and 1 died by drowning saving another guy, really a freak accident.
As far as who they target it is now mostly Iraqi Army and Police, they don't mess with us nearly as much.
The other four that died were actually killed by IA 2 each on 2 separate incidents. Not really sure on the details, I do know the news report on the first two were not really what happened.
I have to say the year I have been here it has improved leaps and bounds, it is really staggering.
It's obviously improved; the casualty rates have dropped drastically.
What's IA?
Iraqi Army
That number is bad, for sure. Makes me sick. But, to put it in a little wider view, 4,000 dead was the summer of '68'.
oh for sure it's a small number compared to wars from years past
but not one of them was necessary. Bush Cheney ought to be brought up on murder charges for all of them. what a waste of life.
nevermind the hundreds of thousands of Iraqi civilians.
But I've said all that enough. I hope the survivors come home asap, and I hope the new administration finally changes our policies to actually support the veterans.
QuoteBut, to put it in a little wider view, 4,000 dead was the summer of '68'.
But, to put it in a little wider view, 35,000 or so dead was the summer of '43'. Vietnam - No big deal.
ha, well put
My grandfather was in the Battle of the Bulge. He always called Vietnam vets wimps and druggies. When you live thru that battle, and save hundreds of men(the Germans overran their position, he organized shoring up the lines), you get a pass. It was pretty cool every Christmas he would get letters from men he served with, thanking him for getting them thru that day, to enjoy all the Christmas's after
Quote from: mussa on November 26, 2008, 01:18:11 PM
you do realize iraqis are killing iraqis and outside terrorists are targeting iraqi citizens not just our troops.
No, I didn't realize that. Tell me more, Herr Bush.
I have a ton of respect WWII vets, really any that have been through major combat ops. But it was different for them, they had a ton of support and they fought a known enemy. It is very difficult when that area is gray.
I was talking to my Platoon Leader about his father who is a Vietnam Vet and his father actually said he thinks we have a more difficult battle. The reason being is that we deploy for 12-15 months and really have no downtime there are constant patrols and other than going to the gym not many ways to blow off steam. They were able to get laid and drink, that would certainly help.
To be honest going on R&R leave was the best and the worst thing that could happen, I really needed it after 9 months. However, after coming back I went into a severe depression for about 2-3 weeks, that has never happened to me in my life. This has been an experience that I will never forget and even though it sucks I wouldn't do it any different. This certainly has made me a different person, some ways better and others not. For a while I didn't like what it was doing to me, I am about as mean as a rattlesnake now, though I think that will change. I wish I could tell more at this time though it isn't feasible, another time I guess.
Quote from: ATV on November 27, 2008, 12:53:16 PM
QuoteBut, to put it in a little wider view, 4,000 dead was the summer of '68'.
But, to put it in a little wider view, 35,000 or so dead was the summer of '43'. Vietnam - No big deal.
Going by that logic, then Iraq must not be too big a deal either.
How about Stalingrad? The Germans surrendered in Feb. of '43', after what is known as the bloodiest battle in human history, with an estimated 1.5 million casualties.
QuoteGoing by that logic, then Iraq must not be too big a deal either.
Wooooooossshhh.
Quote from: ATV on November 27, 2008, 12:53:16 PM
QuoteBut, to put it in a little wider view, 4,000 dead was the summer of '68'.
But, to put it in a little wider view, 35,000 or so dead was the summer of '43'. Vietnam - No big deal.
Quote from: Diomedes on November 27, 2008, 02:06:52 PM
ha, well put
Quote from: ATV on November 27, 2008, 10:59:01 PM
QuoteGoing by that logic, then Iraq must not be too big a deal either.
Wooooooossshhh.
So........ over 4,000 dead in Iraq, and 58,212 dead in Vietnam are no big deal?
You two should hook up and go to the next Eagles taterskin game together.
You're obviously missing ATV's tone and point here. Let me break it down for you:
We start out this exchange saying 4,000 or so are dead in Iraq, and that it's awful.
Then someone says, 'yeah but if you put it in perspective, look at Vietnam, there were a lot more casualties there,' which you have to admit could sound a lot like, 'hey, Iraq ain't that bad.' *
ATV, wishing to argue against this 'hey Iraq ain't that bad' intimation, and against all the stupid thinking that precedes and supports that kind of talk, says 'well sure but let's follow that line of reasoning out: If Iraq is nothing compared Vietnam, then Vietnam is nothing compared to WWII."
This is when your sarcasm detector should have been donging like Big Ben, because that is a patently ridiculous statement. Everyone everywhere agrees that Vietnam was awful, and that you don't go around saying shtein like, 'Vietnam wasn't as bad as WWII because more people died in WWII.'
Do you see what he did there? He's took the same logic in the first comparison, and by applying it just a little further down the line, pushed it to the point where it becomes clear as day that it's bad thinking.
And if you didn't get the sarcasm by that point, then the "no big deal" quip really should have tipped you.
'Whoosh" was the sound it all made buzzing over your head.
*It should also be noted that no one started out by directly saying, "Iraq isn't as bad as all that, look at Vietnam." The sentiment could be taken from what was said, but it is not the only thing that could have been intended. Of course ATV decided to take it that way, because this is an internet forum and it's no damn fun to have serious discussion. It's far better fun to pigeon hole someone into a stupid statement and then brow beat them with clever sarcastic one liners.
Quote from: Drunkmasterflex on November 27, 2008, 03:30:13 PM
I have a ton of respect WWII vets, really any that have been through major combat ops. But it was different for them, they had a ton of support and they fought a known enemy. It is very difficult when that area is gray.
I was talking to my Platoon Leader about his father who is a Vietnam Vet and his father actually said he thinks we have a more difficult battle. The reason being is that we deploy for 12-15 months and really have no downtime there are constant patrols and other than going to the gym not many ways to blow off steam. They were able to get laid and drink, that would certainly help.
To be honest going on R&R leave was the best and the worst thing that could happen, I really needed it after 9 months. However, after coming back I went into a severe depression for about 2-3 weeks, that has never happened to me in my life. This has been an experience that I will never forget and even though it sucks I wouldn't do it any different. This certainly has made me a different person, some ways better and others not. For a while I didn't like what it was doing to me, I am about as mean as a rattlesnake now, though I think that will change. I wish I could tell more at this time though it isn't feasible, another time I guess.
Man it definitely is changing you. Just gotta make sure you make it into a positive when it is all said and done. Be safe and get home! My military experiance changed me but it wasn't nearly as intense as what you guys are going through. Gulf War I was nothing in comparison.
Quote from: Diomedes on November 29, 2008, 09:27:57 AM
ATV, wishing to argue against this 'hey Iraq ain't that bad' intimation, and against all the stupid thinking that precedes and supports that kind of talk, says 'well sure but let's follow that line of reasoning out: If Iraq is nothing compared Vietnam, then Vietnam is nothing compared to WWII."
Do you see what he did there? He's took the same logic in the first comparison, and by applying it just a little further down the line, pushed it to the point where it becomes clear as day that it's bad thinking.
I wasn't saying 'hey, Iraq ain't that bad', though it might have looked that way to someone who is here for no other reason than to be an ass. My point was more to the thinking that overall tactics and weaponry have improved to the point that not as many lives are lost nowadays. Your comment about casualty rates dropping so drastically right before my comment was really what I was reffering too.
I just assumed that the displaced Redkins/Teletubbie fan ATV was just being his normal ignorant self.
whooooosh, back at ya'.
In a Washington Post op-ed today, a former Special Operations interrogator who worked in Iraq in 2006 sharply criticizes American torture techniques as ineffective and dangerous. "Torture and abuse cost American lives," he writes:
I learned in Iraq that the No. 1 reason foreign fighters flocked there to fight were the abuses carried out at Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo. Our policy of torture was directly and swiftly recruiting fighters for al-Qaeda in Iraq. ... It's no exaggeration to say that at least half of our losses and casualties in that country have come at the hands of foreigners who joined the fray because of our program of detainee abuse. The number of U.S. soldiers who have died because of our torture policy will never be definitively known, but it is fair to say that it is close to the number of lives lost on Sept. 11, 2001. How anyone can say that torture keeps Americans safe is beyond me — unless you don't count American soldiers as Americans.
The writer, who used a pseudonym for the article, adds that when he switched his team's techniques to a rapport-building method, they found enormous success. One detainee told the author, "I thought you would torture me, and when you didn't, I decided that everything I was told about Americans was wrong. That's why I decided to cooperate."
From www.thinkprogress.org
3 new deaths in Afghanistan push Canadian toll to 101 - http://www.cbc.ca/world/story/2008/12/05/afghan-soldiers.html
Pissed off Iraqi journalist throws shoes at Bush (http://cosmos.bcst.yahoo.com/up/player/popup/?rn=3906861&cl=11096193&ch=4226716&src=news)
In case that link doesn't take you directly to it you can find it here:
Link (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/bush)
Owned as usual.
:-D I can't believe the pres was that quick.
"this is a goodbye kiss from the Iraqi people, dog"
Good for that guy. After five years of occupation, after seeing his friends and probably a few family members slaughtered, it was the least he could do. How funny would that have been if that had hit him in the face?
Godamnit.
Bush is pretty nimble for an older guy.
LOL @ him saying "in the terms of the agreement this is a major accomplishment."
Throwing shoes, a major accomplishment.
Quote from: shorebird on December 15, 2008, 09:05:07 AM
Bush is pretty nimble for an older guy.
LOL @ him saying "in the terms of the agreement this is a major accomplishment."
Throwing shoes, a major accomplishment.
Well, it is a major statement.
The Iraqi people consider the feet to be the dirtiest part of the body and even showing someone the soles of your shoes is considered a major insult.
That reporter was disrespecting Bush the best way he knew how.
I can't watch that video enough. He was bobbin' and weavin' like hell. :-D
the best part was the smirk on his face while he was moving
Remember a few years back when he was in south america and some guy got out of hand, he gripped somebody up, i think one of his secret service agents for getting out of hand. Bush is no Hoyda. He ducked right out of the way and seemed amused by it at the same time. "I think they were a size 10" - classic
Quote from: EagleFeva on December 15, 2008, 09:22:50 AM
The Iraqi people consider the feet to be the dirtiest part of the body and even showing someone the soles of your shoes is considered a major insult.
That reporter was disrespecting Bush the best way he knew how.
Didn't know that. Good thing they don't think the icehole is the dirtiest part.
Bush said, "I didn't know what the guy said, but I saw his sole."
that's the coolest i've ever seen the guy.
Considering a lot of these fargers wipe their ass with their hand it is no surprise that they don't consider it the dirtiest part of their body.
Quote from: ATV on December 14, 2008, 10:53:44 PM
"this is a goodbye kiss from the Iraqi people, dog"
Good for that guy. After five years of occupation, after seeing his friends and probably a few family members slaughtered, it was the least he could do. How funny would that have been if that had hit him in the face?
Godamnit.
How funny would it be if you were hit by a snowmobile. Please send to me so I can put on AFV.
aw, it's a Bush lover, how cute
there have been only two U.S. casualties in Iraq so far this month
the running total stands at 4,209
And they were here in the wonderful city of Mosul, killed by a car bomb just outside of the base. They were doing a transition mission where guys are mixed by the unit being replaced and the incoming unit. It was the drivers last mission before going home he was literally yards away from safety. It was really bad, 2 NCOs in my platoon knew the kid really well from a previous unit.
Goddamn.
How do you fight an enemy who is ready to die......who wants to die for his cause, and has been trained to do so from birth?
Friggen' car bombs. How do you win against a people whose sole occupation for hundreds if not thousands of years, has been war? It's just about all they know. Mutherfargers go to bed at night thinkig of ways to kill Americans.
You can say the same thing about most peoples. We said the same thing about the Vietnamese. Yet they still didn't see this coming?
Quote from: ATV on December 19, 2008, 10:23:44 AM
We said the same thing about the Vietnamese. Yet they still didn't see this coming?
Well, of course they didn't see it coming. They only have those little slits to see out of.
Also, they like to eat rice and ride bicycles.
Quote from: shorebird on December 19, 2008, 08:43:09 AM
Goddamn.
How do you fight an enemy who is ready to die......who wants to die for his cause, and has been trained to do so from birth?
Friggen' car bombs. How do you win against a people whose sole occupation for hundreds if not thousands of years, has been war? It's just about all they know. Mutherfargers go to bed at night thinkig of ways to kill Americans.
simple minds closed off from the rest of the world. persuaded by religion and those who use religion to get what THEY want, not what GOD actually says. It's simple man, people have been using religion for years to get what they want. These people see heaven as better than Earth...oh yea and they are promised 60 virgins and martyrdom. Mud hut or 60 virgins, you choose. Total diff. world outside of the US
Quotesimple minds closed off from the rest of the world. persuaded by religion and those who use religion to get what THEY want, not what GOD actually says. It's simple man, people have been using religion for years to get what they want. These people see heaven as better than Earth...oh yea and they are promised 60 virgins and martyrdom. Mud hut or 60 virgins, you choose. Total diff. world outside of the US
Did the North Vietnamese believe in 60 virgins? No, they believed in their principles.
Quote from: ATV on December 19, 2008, 01:13:32 PM
Quotesimple minds closed off from the rest of the world. persuaded by religion and those who use religion to get what THEY want, not what GOD actually says. It's simple man, people have been using religion for years to get what they want. These people see heaven as better than Earth...oh yea and they are promised 60 virgins and martyrdom. Mud hut or 60 virgins, you choose. Total diff. world outside of the US
Did the North Vietnamese believe in 60 virgins? No, they believed in their principles.
I quoted shorebird...who was referring to Iraq...which is what this thread is about. dickbag.
The thing is a lot of the men and women doing the suicide missions aren't that way. They are people that are told if they don't do it their families will be murdered, many of the extremists aren't the ones actually doing the dirty work.
Quote from: ATV on December 19, 2008, 01:13:32 PM
Quotesimple minds closed off from the rest of the world. persuaded by religion and those who use religion to get what THEY want, not what GOD actually says. It's simple man, people have been using religion for years to get what they want. These people see heaven as better than Earth...oh yea and they are promised 60 virgins and martyrdom. Mud hut or 60 virgins, you choose. Total diff. world outside of the US
Did the North Vietnamese believe in 60 virgins? No, they held out for the other dozen the ad said they'd get.
i wish ATV would get gutted by nips
Quote from: Drunkmasterflex on December 19, 2008, 01:47:13 PM
The thing is a lot of the men and women doing the suicide missions aren't that way. They are people that are told if they don't do it their families will be murdered, many of the extremists aren't the ones actually doing the dirty work.
the latest is to recruit women who have very low iq's are half wits or even mentally retarded and send them off strapped
and sb best believe if these people had access to blackhawks guided missles and aircraft carriers theyd be using them instead of car bombs and ied's
no doubt about weaponry
Yeah, thats a very, very scary thought.
4,223
4,245
for reference, Afghanistan: 651
4,259
Afghanistan 666
Do you have the 16th or 17th scheduled in your phone to do this?
Anyway, it's amazing how there is zero coverage of this anymore. I mean zero. All of the media hacks were on every casualty like flies on shtein from 03-05 when it was popular to report the deaths of our troops. Remember when Nightline spent an hour reading every US death in Iraq? The number then was only 900 or so but it was an obvious political statement against the war.
Hell, even on DU they don't talk about it anymore.
"It's the economy, stupid."
People don't care about soldiers or brown people dying when they are having trouble paying their bills. (Also, the media is not going to focus on the war when it turns out that it's not really a top priority of the Obama administration to scale back overseas involvement. He is actually just going to "spread it around a little.")
truth be told peope dont really care about soldiers or brown people dying when the economy is good
i felt sad when d got strangled in prison
he was acting like a little bitch and most likely deserved it
Quote from: ice grillin you on March 17, 2009, 09:45:23 AM
truth be told peope dont really care about soldiers or brown people dying when the economy is good
That's the opposite of whats happening actually.
you getting confused with more people caring and people in general caring
we already did all the revolutionary shtein son...the picketing...the protesting...but then they blew kennedys head off...went to vietnam...blue collar jobs went over seas...
point is we all cared about that stuff...tried it...and lost out to the mighty corporation...america INC.
remember none of us sold out...we just bought in
Quote from: ice grillin you on March 17, 2009, 10:07:01 AM
you getting confused with more people caring and people in general caring
we already did all the revolutionary shtein son...the picketing...the protesting...but then they blew kennedys head off...went to vietnam...blue collar jobs went over seas...
point is we all cared about that stuff...tried it...and lost out to the mighty corporation...america INC.
remember none of us sold out...we just bought in
Um...OK. Not sure what all that means, but I am right. People care more about their wallets than the troops who are dying and the proof is in the media coverage.
Quote from: Butchers Bill on March 17, 2009, 09:27:11 AMDo you have the 16th or 17th scheduled in your phone to do this?
Ha. I just give it an update every once in a while, didn't realize I was keeping such a tight schedule.
For or against or any shade in between, I think you ought to know these numbers.
Holdover Def. Secretary Robert Gates set to begin uphill battle to cancel costly and unnecessary weapons projects (http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2009/03/17/gates_readies_big_cuts_in_weapons/).
Quote from: FastFreddie on March 17, 2009, 11:53:53 AM
Holdover Def. Secretary Robert Gates set to begin uphill battle to cancel costly and unnecessary weapons projects (http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2009/03/17/gates_readies_big_cuts_in_weapons/).
Hot damn.
20 deaths a month is pretty unacceptable.
So we can expect to lose 400-600 more troops until Obama decides to do what he promised he would do? Awesome.
farging hacks.
Quote from: Butchers Bill on March 17, 2009, 10:10:02 AM
Quote from: ice grillin you on March 17, 2009, 10:07:01 AM
you getting confused with more people caring and people in general caring
we already did all the revolutionary shtein son...the picketing...the protesting...but then they blew kennedys head off...went to vietnam...blue collar jobs went over seas...
point is we all cared about that stuff...tried it...and lost out to the mighty corporation...america INC.
remember none of us sold out...we just bought in
Um...OK. Not sure what all that means, but I am right. People care more about their wallets than the troops who are dying and the proof is in the media coverage.
just got this email at work from our security branch
The Federal Protective Service has advised Security Branch that anti-war demonstrations are planned for the Franklin Park, K Street Corridor, and the McPherson Square areas. These events are scheduled for 3:00pm, Thursday, March 19, 2009. Security Branch will monitor the situation and will report any updates.
Good for them.
4,274
the 4274th victim is a 20 yr old marine corporal from riverside, ca. his body was just flown home yesterday and my sqaudron was assigned the burial detail which will take place either friday or saturday.
'Victim' is an interesting choice of words.
Well, he is certainly a victim. The problem is identifying the culprit.
Big guy, white beard, wears a striped top hat and has a fondness for pointing.
(http://www.celluloid-dreams.de/content/images/kritiken-filmbilder/team-america-world-police/team-america-world-police-1.jpg)
America... farg YEAH!
Quote from: Diomedes on April 22, 2009, 05:02:22 PM
'Victim' is an interesting choice of words.
everyone is a victim in war, regardless of which side they are on.
Quote from: Sgt PSN on April 22, 2009, 08:20:24 PM
Quote from: Diomedes on April 22, 2009, 05:02:22 PM
'Victim' is an interesting choice of words.
everyone is a victim in war, regardless of which side they are on.
dont you get deep on me
Quote from: ice grillin you on April 22, 2009, 09:44:48 PM
Quote from: Sgt PSN on April 22, 2009, 08:20:24 PM
Quote from: Diomedes on April 22, 2009, 05:02:22 PM
'Victim' is an interesting choice of words.
everyone is a victim in war, regardless of which side they are on.
dont you get deep on me
You prefer him deep
in you?
Quote from: Sgt PSN on April 22, 2009, 08:20:24 PMeveryone is a victim in war, regardless of which side they are on.
A reasonable argument could be made that volunteer members of an invading force are not victims by even the broadest interpretation of the term.
I like to think that volenteers commitments are abused and misused by poor planning and political purpos, however the commitment is real and needs to be made.
4,300
(http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_emle56-GJ1Y/Shl0oswSfDI/AAAAAAAAAQc/Wb7UnYBlWfM/s400/us_thumb.jpg)
Quote from: ATV on May 26, 2009, 11:06:26 AM
(http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_emle56-GJ1Y/Shl0oswSfDI/AAAAAAAAAQc/Wb7UnYBlWfM/s400/us_thumb.jpg)
so when does it stop? isn't your man suppose to stop this shtein with the quickness, or maybe it was the dem party that was supposed to do that straight away as Mr. Nottingham would say.
It seems to me that the people from the eastern half of the US suck at fighting/dodging/hiding.
4,317
Quote from: Father Demon on May 27, 2009, 05:32:22 PM
It seems to me that the people from the eastern half of the US suck at fighting/dodging/hiding.
Or almost nobody lives in the "mountain west."
Quote from: Geowhizzer on June 29, 2009, 07:03:51 PM
Quote from: Father Demon on May 27, 2009, 05:32:22 PM
It seems to me that the people from the eastern half of the US suck at fighting/dodging/hiding.
Or almost nobody lives in the "mountain west."
Or they are a bunch of Hoydas.
Quote from: Diomedes on June 29, 2009, 06:31:08 PM
4,317
definitely worth it
also the iraqi death toll passed 100K recently
that's a conservative estimate
http://www.armchairgeneral.com/return-to-tarawa-interview-with-leon-cooper.htm
It's not exactly current with Iraq, but i just caught the Return to Tarawa documentary on the Miliatary channel. Theres something badass about an 89yo guy being bleeped out talking about the attack he took part in.
4,376
I'm not trying to downplay that number by any means, but 59 killed in 8 months is a considerable drop from the average isn't it? You have to wonder also, how many were a direct result of combat, what with how many marines were dying in motorcycle accidents last year.
{sarcasm} I haven't seen any Iraq news on the teevee so I just thought it was over with. {sarcasm}
So much for it being Vietnam, a quagmire, or "lost" as Senator Reid called it. It was a stupid war and the politicians on both sides used it and the suffering that came with it for political gain.
Quote from: shorebird on February 16, 2010, 05:47:07 AM
I'm not trying to downplay that number by any means, but 59 killed in 8 months is a considerable drop from the average isn't it? You have to wonder also, how many were a direct result of combat, what with how many marines were dying in motorcycle accidents last year.
It is because US troops aren't out in sector in the volume they were since last July.
4,400 dead in Iraq. (30 so far this year...at this pace, Iraq will surpass the Revolutionary War on the list of American war casualties before 2011)
1,087 killed in Afghanistan
4,463
and still one POW..