Occupation death toll of U.S. troops equal to that of war - Page 2

MrFun · August 27, 2003, 00:21

Let's all go to bed now, and sleep on this, ok?

MOBIUS · August 27, 2003, 00:22

Really, I am curious.

What great terrorist threat has the US prevented by invading Iraq???

Would the Jordanian Embassy have been bombed if Saddam were still in power? What about that attack on the UN?

I put it to the hawks on this forum that this 'war' has actually encouraged terrorist attacks and is gradually turning Iraq into 'Al Qaeda Alley'...

Bravo!

Ted Striker · August 27, 2003, 00:24

Quote:

Originally posted by MOBIUS

Sorry, I am not the Prime Minister, so short of assassinating him I fail to see what I could have done to prevent it except complain vociferously and go on the anti war march in London - which I did both...

And this differs from the President HOW?

Quote:

I just said that the UK pop was AGAINST the war - Blair only succeeded in getting back despite a massive rebellion from his own party by deliberately misleading the country over the threat posed by Saddam!

And YOU let him do it.

MichaeltheGreat · August 27, 2003, 00:25

Quote:

Originally posted by MOBIUS
Really, I am curious.

What great terrorist threat has the US prevented by invading Iraq???

Would the Jordanian Embassy have been bombed if Saddam were still in power? What about that attack on the UN?

I put it to the hawks on this forum that this 'war' has actually encouraged terrorist attacks and is gradually turning Iraq into 'Al Qaeda Alley'...

Bravo!

Good, get 'em in one spot so we can hunt down and grease the mother****ers.

Ted Striker · August 27, 2003, 00:26

Quote:

Originally posted by MOBIUS

Bravo!

Yes excellent troll ATTEMPT

This troll is so summer 2002

Move on to something new

MOBIUS · August 27, 2003, 00:26

Quote:

Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat
Most of the post-May 1 fatalities have been non-combat related. Vehicle accidents, a couple of illness and heat casualties, some ordnance disposal accidents, etc. **** happens on extended deployments, even without the added combat and booby traps from the *******s. If it was easy, then civilians would do it.

Roughly half to be precise...

I put it to you that to the US public back home that a dead marine in a body bag from heatstroke is pretty much the same as one with his head blown off...

Therefore the total number of US soldiers killed in Iraq is still 276...

Drake Tungsten · August 27, 2003, 00:26

I'd rather have them blowing **** up in Iraq than in New York.

MOBIUS · August 27, 2003, 00:28

Quote:

Originally posted by MOBIUS

Roughly half to be precise...

I put it to you that to the US public back home that a dead marine in a body bag from heatstroke is pretty much the same as one with his head blown off...

Interesting to note that the report (US) does not make the distinction you do.

Therefore the total number of US soldiers killed in Iraq is still 276...

Kuciwalker · August 27, 2003, 00:28

Quote:

Originally posted by MOBIUS

Roughly half to be precise...

I put it to you that to the US public back home that a dead marine in a body bag from heatstroke is pretty much the same as one with his head blown off...

Therefore the total number of US soldiers killed in Iraq is still 276...

Nope, US soldiers dead. Killed means someone did it to them :P

Anyway, you can't say the occupation will fail because we have vehicle accidents

we probably have less than average.

Ted Striker · August 27, 2003, 00:29

Prolly you would be less likely to die in a vehicle accident in Iraq than you would on the US freeways.

I guarantee that's a fact too.

Nubclear · August 27, 2003, 00:31

I HAT U @2@@!!!!!!!!!

:YOUDIEBI***:

MOBIUS · August 27, 2003, 00:31

Quote:

Originally posted by Ted Striker
Yes excellent troll ATTEMPT

This troll is so summer 2002

Move on to something new

Hey I'll take that as a compliment - especially as you avoided answering the perfectly reasonable question involved...

Ted Striker · August 27, 2003, 00:31

Quote:

Originally posted by Comrade Tassadar
I HAT U @2@@!!!!!!!!!

:YOUDIEBI***:

word

Ted Striker · August 27, 2003, 00:32

Quote:

Originally posted by MOBIUS

Hey I'll take that as a compliment - especially as you avoided answering the perfectly reasonable question involved...

I didn't avoid sh1t

You asked how the US and UK get out of there

It was the wrong question in the first place.

MOBIUS · August 27, 2003, 00:36

Quote:

Originally posted by skywalker
Nope, US soldiers dead. Killed means someone did it to them :P

Anyway, you can't say the occupation will fail because we have vehicle accidents

we probably have less than average.

Aww bless, I can almost feel the desperation that prompted you to make that lame post...

When someone dies in a vehicle accident for example, it is quite routine to be reported as 'person X was killed'...

Dead is dead - the US public sees body bags. They don't care how the person died - only that they died in Iraq...

Kuciwalker · August 27, 2003, 00:37

You're point?

MOBIUS · August 27, 2003, 00:38

Quote:

Originally posted by Ted Striker
I didn't avoid sh1t

You asked how the US and UK get out of there

It was the wrong question in the first place.

You don't know the answer - ergo it was the wrong question...!

MOBIUS · August 27, 2003, 00:40

Quote:

Originally posted by skywalker
You're point?

My point is that I am allowed to say '276 US soldiers killed, and that you are therefore wrong!

Wake up boys! Standards are slipping on Poly!

Kuciwalker · August 27, 2003, 00:43

Just because they say killed, doesn't mean it's correct.

MOBIUS · August 27, 2003, 00:44

Quote:

Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat
Good, get 'em in one spot so we can hunt down and grease the mother****ers.

Except that we are playing the moving targets and there's a few million more of them than there are us...

Kuciwalker · August 27, 2003, 00:45

You assert that there are over three hundred million terrorists in the world? Or even a few million (if you're talking about the military)?

Ted Striker · August 27, 2003, 00:46

Your question isn't really a question because it's a troll. So put the [transparent] front down and get real for a second you w anker.

It goes back to that old, "well as soon as the body bags pile up the Americans will want to bring troops home," troll. Your sad post is riddled with hot troll words, like "bodybags," and "retreat."

You want to know how to get troops out of there NOW. Well sorry, it's not gonna happen.

The answer to MY question is the answer that's been right in front of your face the whole time, and it is that the US and UK will stay however damn long it takes to rebuild the country and secure the peace.

So find a new topic amateur.

At least Horse comes up with original material for his US trolls.

Kuciwalker · August 27, 2003, 00:48

MOBEUS's trolls are painfully dull and inane.

Ted Striker · August 27, 2003, 00:49

They are just so repetitive and the only thing that changes is the smilie sequence

Bereta_Eder · August 27, 2003, 05:48

Mobius can flash his baps in faliraki any time

Ted still has the telescope up his arse

MikeH · August 27, 2003, 05:58

Didn't agree with the war in the first place because I was worried about what would happen after. Now we've done it the only thing we can do is stay and sort it out.

That said, my respect to the soldiers who are out there doing it, and my condolences to the families of those who've died. Whatever I think of the politicians they are still out there putting their lives at risk and I think they deserve our full support.

Sandman · August 27, 2003, 07:46

The numbers are pretty small, and they'll probably get smaller as the US brings in more cannon-fodder proxies.

Sikander · August 27, 2003, 08:13

I grew up eating Vietnam news for breakfast. There we had huge numbers of troops deployed and fighting, and we ended up losing almost 60,000 killed. We used free fire zones liberally by today' s standards, and had numerous air sorties and artillery fire missions every day. We had a draft army as opposed to today's all-volunteer force. We had combat troops on the ground from 1965 to about 1971.

In Iraq we are losing troops at a rate that will take us over 1000 in our third year there, assuming that the rate remains constant. We rarely if ever fire artillery, and very rarely use airstrikes. The civilian casualty rate for Iraq is miniscule in comparison to Viet Nam. Most of the resistance to our presence in Iraq comes from members of the former ruling class, and foreign jihadists. I suspect that there are plenty of Iraqis who have very good reasons for turning members of either group over to us. Certainly the majority of the population has no desire to see the Sunni Arabs back in power, and even some of the Sunni Arabs have no desire to see the Baathists return. That threat is becoming smaller every day. As for the Jihadists, they will become very unwelcome the more they kill Iraqis. So far they have killed more Iraqis than foreigners, and their track record seems to indicate that this trend will continue. I doubt that they will find themselves popular enough to count on local support.

The most distressing thing that I see in this whole occupation is that the Allies seem to be losing the information war. This is inexcusable. We should be the masters of this sort of warfare, and should be prepared to aggressively take over the airwaves to make our story and especially that of the ruling council the dominant one. The truth is always the first casualty in war, but it doesn't have to be one of ours.

Agathon · August 27, 2003, 09:03

Quote:

Originally posted by MOBIUS

I put it to the hawks on this forum that this 'war' has actually encouraged terrorist attacks and is gradually turning Iraq into 'Al Qaeda Alley'...

Yep... I only wonder how they were dumb enough to fall for it. OBL must be jumping with joy - this is what he was trying to do with S11. Due to the US support of Israel and it's heavy handedness in the region he now has an endless supply of recruits and now a handy place to kill the infidels, which has been his plan all along. All he needs to do is destablilze the occupation so that the ordinary Iraqi sees the US as making things worse and he'll be on the road to winning. So far, so good.

I don't like him much, but when he said "America is much weaker than it appears", he was absolutely right.

Agathon · August 27, 2003, 09:05

Quote:

Originally posted by Ted Striker

The answer to MY question is the answer that's been right in front of your face the whole time, and it is that the US and UK will stay however damn long it takes to rebuild the country and secure the peace.