Al Sadr's 'defeated' militias:

[Ziggy Stardust]

In any case, about the banner, all ships have those types of signs and bunting and music and whatnot on their return from cruises. It very much has everything to do with that particular ship and its involvement in overall operations, not overall operations.

Even you have to agree that the speech was mainly bollocks though.

"Removed an ally of Al Quaida" and refrences to 9/11? Please.

You can argue your way out of the meaning of Major Combat operations, since Major is such an undefined term. But that's the way speeches are written right?

"We have begun the search for hidden chemical and biological weapons, and already know of hundreds of sites that will be investigated.".

Clever, they know of hundreds of sites that will be investigated. Sais nothing about knowing that chemicals and biological wapons will actually be there.

As always, it's a lot of hot air with a lot of words that will cause some to get a hard on. Nothing substancial.

 

[nonconformist]

FIXED. This is fun, let me try!

Chance for a better future under Saddam's<Chance of a better future now

Let me try again!

Purposely inflicted deaths of children due to hording/selling Iraq's medice by saddam>all deaths due to violence in Iraq since 2003

Let's see:

-a report last month put the potential number of deaths since 2003 at 1.2 million
-Iraq Body Count admits freely that it is a very conservative estimate, and the true figure is much higher
-Most Iraqis are pretty depressed about their future; evidently Sunnis more than Shia
-Over half of all Iraq's 32,000 doctors have fled abroad (the actual figure is 17,000 of them)
-Even simple anti-embolism medicine is impossible to come by in Iraq, as the medicines are being stolen and sold on the black market
-This is because Iraqis are materially poorer than in 2003; the price of commodities has risen faster than the living wage
-Women have lost any right they had in Iraq
-Sectarian violence; that wasn't really around prior to 2003
-Millions of Iraqis have fled abroad; I don't have trhe figures at hand, but estomate are up to around 5%, which is absolutely horrific!

EDIT: forgot to add, Iraqi Christians are pretty much nonexistant now.

 

[RedRalph]

Purposely inflicted deaths of children due to hording/selling Iraq's medice by saddam>all deaths due to violence in Iraq since 2003

Length of time that happened over, 12 years>time since the Us invaded, 5 years. Give it another 7 years and lets see where we are Patroklos

 

[Patroklos]

Even you have to agree that the speech was mainly bollocks though.

I don't think it was entirely bullocks, because it was obvious the intent was do declare we conventionally consider "war" to be over. The nation state of Iraq was defeated.

You can argue your way out of the meaning of Major Combat operations, since Major is such an undefined term. But that's the way speeches are written right?

I don't have to argue my way out of the meaning of Major Combat operations because it was correct. There has been nothing even remotely approaching the scale of the initial invasion operations.

It is a joke to call and particular initiative in Iraq since then "major" given the scale of operations the US is capable of. If we consider the penetration of armored spearheads consisting of 150,000 troops and 50,000 vehicles hundreds of miles into a well armed nation state (Iraqi invasion) major, and that is STILL minor compared to what we could do, then nothing else major has happened.

Now if you wish to quibble and say that hundreds of minor operations over years constitutes a "major" operation I would actually agree with you in theory, but it does not invalidate what the president was saying.

Clever, they know of hundreds of sites that will be investigated. Sais nothing about knowing that chemicals and biological wapons will actually be there.

I agree with you in hindsight this part is bullocks, but at the time every major intelligence agency in the world still believed the same as the President.

As always, it's a lot of hot air with a lot of words that will cause some to get a hard on. Nothing substancial.

I can't help it if you have a problem with scale when it comes to military operations. It is a common fault amoungst civilians for obvious reasons, why should you have a good grasp? But that doesn't change the fact that relative to what our army can do, Iraq even now is petty minor and history in time will consider it such.

 

[RedRalph]

Patroklos, you do realise yiou cannot entirely seperate military operations from the politics that spawns them? Just a general observation, but you seem to think war happens in a vaccuum... anybody with half a brain knows the Us sint suffering enormous casualties, nothing compared even to Vietnam, but can you see the huge political and internaitonal price being paid? I could be wrong, yuo might be 100% aware of it, but tis not the impression I get form your posts...

 

[Patroklos]

-a report last month put the potential number of deaths since 2003 at 1.2 million

Lets use the outlyer, because thats the accepted way of doing things, right? Oh, wait...

Honestly, every time you do something like this I just have to laugh at how easy you make things for me

-Iraq Body Count admits freely that it is a very conservative estimate, and the true figure is much higher

And I agree with them given the reasons for them saying this. Thats called academic honesty, which quoting a 1.2 million figure with a straight face isn't.

I could add 100K on top of the IBC count and Saddam still killed more children.

-Most Iraqis are pretty depressed about their future; evidently Sunnis more than Shia

If it is in fact true, that doesn't change the fact there is still a chance for something better to materialize, while before there was NO chance.

-Over half of all Iraq's 32,000 doctors have fled abroad (the actual figure is 17,000 of them)

Considering all 32K of those doctors only serviced 25% of the population, having 17K serve everyone is still better. Oh the problems with pretending Saddam's regime was better, is this the first time one smacked you upside the face?

-Even simple anti-embolism medicine is impossible to come by in Iraq, as the medicines are being stolen and sold on the black market

Thats compared to ALL medicine being hard to come by in Iraq before. But hell, under Saddam even if they had medice it wasn't like the Kurds or Shia would have had a chance to get them anyway.

-This is because Iraqis are materially poorer than in 2003; the price of commodities has risen faster than the living wage

Wow, you mean during a time of revolutionary social change and political upheaval standards of living slip! I mean, that is just entirely unprecidented! That has never ever been observed before!

-Women have lost any right they had in Iraq

They used to vote in Iraq before? Oh, is this another laughable instance of people pretending Iraqi society wasn't mysoginstic before 2003? Or is it another laughable instance of people pretending not having to wear head scarfs is preferable to not being able to vote?

-Sectarian violence; that wasn't really around prior to 2003

False. But there was all sorts of other violence around to make up for it, and given Saddam's death tolls a whole lot more of it.

-Millions of Iraqis have fled abroad; I don't have trhe figures at hand, but estomate are up to around 5%, which is absolutely horrific!

That depends on what they eventually return to, which I have never said is a guarunteed good result. However, many of those refugees now lead better lives in other Arab and Western countries, or at the very least equivalent. Unless you were a Sunni living by walking on the heads of the oppressed before 2003, I am sure you cry for them.

EDIT: forgot to add, Iraqi Christians are pretty much nonexistant now.

Cool, lets errect a genocidal dictatorship so that they can be maintained. Sounds like a good trade.

BTW, none of those "points" above changes the fact that Saddam killed more children (and that is just children) than all the deaths in Iraq combined since 2003. You Fail.

Give it another 7 years and lets see where we are Patroklos

Considering that violence has dropped drastically, it is doutful another 7 years at current levels would yeild greater numbers. Of course, if Saddam was still in power...

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

I don't think it was entirely bullocks, because it was obvious the intent was do declare we conventionally consider "war" to be over. The nation state of Iraq was defeated.

Mainly != Entirely.

I don't have to argue my way out of the meaning of Major Combat operations because it was correct. There has been nothing even remotely approaching the scale of the initial invasion operations.

So you agree it's a relative term? Which was my point.

My point is not claiming: Bush lied! It is that the people writing speeches are very carefull in avoiding making any statements that are falsifiable.

Now if you wish to quibble and say that hundreds of minor operations over years constitutes a "major" operation I would actually agree with you in theory, but it does not invalidate what the president was saying.

Allright, if you wish to venture down this path, can you give me an universal definition of a Major Combat Operation? Not a relative one, but an absolute one. What does it take for a Military Operation to earn the label: "Major"? I'm not asking for your opinion but one everyone agrees on. Take it away

I agree with you in hindsight this part is bullocks, but at the time every major intelligence agency in the world still believed the same as the President.

The lack of information given is bollocks, not the actual statements themselves. Every word Bush stated is true. They would go searching for chemical weapons, and they knew where they'd go looking.

The implication is there that they knew what they'd find, but Bush never stated that. See what I mean?

I can't help it if you have a problem with scale when it comes to military operations.

But you are here to educate me.

It is a common fault amoungst civilians for obvious reasons, why should you have a good grasp?

Not grasping my point, deliberatly or not, is not a very good base to be condecending from. I'm very curious about your expert opinion.

But that doesn't change the fact that relative to what our army can do, Iraq even now is petty minor and history in time will consider it such.

Hmm, brainfart.

Normandy was much larger than IF. Hell, the US Army could pull of much larger Military Operations than IF. So Bush did lie when he said Major Military Operations were done. There never were Major Military Operations since relative to what your army can do, Iraq never was Major. But that´s my civilian logic talking. Educate me about relativity oh Military Genius.

 

[Patroklos]

Patroklos, you do realise yiou cannot entirely seperate military operations from the politics that spawns them?

Of course not, but "major combat operations" is refering specifically to one of them, and is alse quantifiable.

Mainly != Entirely.

I told you I thought some if it was bullucks. I never said in was "entirely" anything. In fact, I found the whole thing sort of childish and immature even if it had been entirely correct. I want poise and stature from my leaders, not stunts. But I blame that on America in general, not the President.

So you agree it's a relative term? Which was my point.

Yes. But in this case there was something readily available (the initial invasion) for everything since to be relative to.

Allright, if you wish to venture down this path, can you give me an universal definition of a Major Combat Operation? Not a relative one, but an absolute one. What does it take for a Military Operation to earn the label: "Major"? I'm not asking for your opinion but one everyone agrees on. Take it away

Oh, I bet you think you are clever. There is of course not one, I figured you might try intelligent reasoning instead of childish quibbling, but if you want to maintain that 10K troops attacking Falluja is equivalent to 150,000K troops invading a nation, feel free. It doens't reflect well on you.

Normandy was much larger than IF

Actually, it wasn't. There was far more armor/vehicles in IF and just as many troops. However, you can magify that way if you want, that just disqualifies the current operations as "major" even more. Congratulations!

What you fail to grasp, well are purposely ignoring becasue you think you are witty, is that within the confines of the Iraqi confilict itself the largest operation is going to be the "major" one for that conflict. That already happened, and since it did there is something readily available for everthing else to be relative to inside Iraq.

You are absolutely right that IOF could be considered minor overall, that is meaninless when talking about OIF itself.

 

[Den Valdron]

Actually no. It's simply not true that every major intelligence agency believed that Iraq had wmd's.

Notably, in 2001, both Condoleeza Rice and Colin Powell gave speeches asserting that Iraq had been conclusively disarmed and had no wmd's left. I would assume that they were relying upon American intelligence at the time.

In the run up to the Iraq War, the Russians, through Putin, expressed the view that Iraq had no nuclear weapons program left at all... a correct assessment. They indicated that it was possible that there might be some pre-Gulf War chemical weapons left over. But they asserted no significant stocks and no ongoing program. In terms of pre-Gulf war chemical weapons, there were significant issues about degradation, and a general feeling that due to contamination and manufacturing flaws, any weapons left over from that period would be mostly toxic sludge.

France also expressed the view that Iraq did not possess significant wmd's.

Most of Iraq's neighbors indicated that their information was no wmd's and no threat.

Israel claimed that there were wmd's. Britain claimed the same, although Britain's 'evidence' or case was far from convincing... particularly given the affair of the plagiarized dossier.

But overall, the alleged uniformity of opinion on the subject of Saddam's wmd's simply did not exist.

As for Iraq Body Count. Iraq Body Count is not a 'conservative estimate of total war deaths in Iraq', and they have never made that claim. Rather, Iraq Body Count is a subset of deaths, counted under certain conditions. That's a pretty careful distinction.

Look at it this way. Supposing an organization dedicated itself to counting only those fatalities involving men over six feet tall involved in auto accidents. You would get a figure. But that figure would only ever be a subset. It wouldn't be acceptable as a representative figure for accident deaths, or even auto accident deaths. Not even as a conservative figure.

Using statistical techniques, you could extrapolate out and arrive at an estimate of the real death toll, based on assumptions about your subset and its relation to the general population. So far as I know, Iraq Body Count has never done this and no one has ever attempted to use the data that way.

In other countries, studies comparing real death rates and the sort of methodology that Iraqi Body Count uses, suggests that it may be catching 1 in 5, or perhaps 20% of the actual death toll. This is very suggestive that perhaps Iraq Body Count's numbers may represent only 15 to 25% of the real figure, but caution is advised.

 

[Den Valdron]

Patroklos, can you verify this assertion:

Considering all 32K of those doctors only serviced 25% of the population, having 17K serve everyone is still better.

 

[Nylan]

People who have no grasp of military matters are fun to watch when they try to mix their politics with the military.

 

[RedRalph]

People who have no grasp of military matters are fun to watch when they try to mix their politics with the military.

And vice versa, believe me

 

[Nylan]

People who understand the military are fun to watch when they keep their priorities straight?

Whatever you say...

 

[Patroklos]

Patroklos, can you verify this assertion

You want me to verify that the Saddam's heath services didn't serve the Shia and Kurds? Seriously?

As for Iraq Body Count. Iraq Body Count is not a 'conservative estimate of total war deaths in Iraq', and they have never made that claim. Rather, Iraq Body Count is a subset of deaths, counted under certain conditions. That's a pretty careful distinction.

It is, which I recognized myself above.

Look at it this way. Supposing an organization dedicated itself to counting only those fatalities involving men over six feet tall involved in auto accidents. You would get a figure. But that figure would only ever be a subset. It wouldn't be acceptable as a representative figure for accident deaths, or even auto accident deaths. Not even as a conservative figure.

Thats not what they are doing however, using such ridiculous parameters. You can call only counting actually verifiable deaths as a subset if you want, but it is not an such arbitrary distiction andy more than our census only counting verifiable citizens/people in the country is.

Using statistical techniques, you could extrapolate out and arrive at an estimate of the real death toll, based on assumptions about your subset and its relation to the general population. So far as I know, Iraq Body Count has never done this and no one has ever attempted to use the data that way.

They don't, but others do. I have never used the IBC as a definitive factual total of all Iraqi's dead. I didn't even bring it up in this thread. All I said is that 1.2 million was an outlier, and not only that but the upper estimate within a study (with a 600K swing, as ridiculous as that is).

In other countries, studies comparing real death rates and the sort of methodology that Iraqi Body Count uses, suggests that it may be catching 1 in 5, or perhaps 20% of the actual death toll. This is very suggestive that perhaps Iraq Body Count's numbers may represent only 15 to 25% of the real figure, but caution is advised.

Not always. Traffic deaths in the US are based on actual events. Police fatalities are based on actual events. Statistical extrapolation can be used, it doesn't have to be and some times it is not proper for it to be. In the US there is no need to extrapoliate traffic fatalities, the raw data is reliable. Obviously the raw data on Iraqi deaths is not inclusive, but again the outliers hit the 600K-1.2M range.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

Oh, I bet you think you are clever. There is of course not one, I figured you might try intelligent reasoning instead of childish quibbling, but if you want to maintain that 10K troops attacking Falluja is equivalent to 150,000K troops invading a nation, feel free. It doens't reflect well on you.

Where? Where do I say this?

edit: But I notice you fail to give me a definition.

Actually, it wasn't. There was far more armor/vehicles in IF and just as many troops. However, you can magify that way if you want, that just disqualifies the current operations as "major" even more. Congratulations!

/facepalm

What you fail to grasp, well are purposely ignoring becasue you think you are witty, is that within the confines of the Iraqi confilict itself the largest operation is going to be the "major" one for that conflict. That already happened, and since it did there is something readily available for everthing else to be relative to inside Iraq.

You are absolutely right that IOF could be considered minor overall, that is meaninless when talking about OIF itself.

Thus it's a relative term. Which is my entire point, no matter howmany other points you'd like to shove in my shoes, jeez. So, since it's a relative term, it is impossible to catch Bush on that one. So ... get this, Bush didn't lie. I'm not arguing that he did, I am arguing that he didn't. He weaseled his words (like most politicians) so he couldn't lie.

On the other hand I could call 10k troops attacking Fallujah a Major Operation in the light of rebuilding a country. Nothing as big as invading the nation, but that was in wartime, so they cannot be compared.

I could, but I don't. The ONLY point I am trying to make is: It. Is. A. Relative. Statement!

edit: You know what? Nevermind.

[Parody]
I can't help it if you have a problem with comprehension when it comes to logic. It is a common fault amoungst military personel for obvious reasons [/Parody]

 

[nonconformist]

Lets use the outlyer, because thats the accepted way of doing things, right? Oh, wait...

The truth is noone knows because the US military doesn't give a . .. .. .. . how many iraqis die.

Honestly, every time you do something like this I just have to laugh at how easy you make things for me

Good, because otherwise you'd be in over your head.

I could add 100K on top of the IBC count and Saddam still killed more children.

Are you including the 500,000 children that died because of the sanctions? The children killed by American targetting of Iraqi infrastructure , health services and electrical/water grid?

Actually, what's pitiful, and would be laughable is your argument: "we killed less people than Saddam". That's a great argument considering that you guys are supposed to be liberators, not opressors. While you're there, how about giving Saddam a posthumous pardon for not being as bad as Stalin?

If it is in fact true, that doesn't change the fact there is still a chance for something better to materialize, while before there was NO chance.

Chance? What chance? You really think Iraq is going to turn out to be anything less than another Lebanon?
The sad, yet amusing truth is, America has damned itself to decades of future Iraqi terrorism. When the next 9/11 happens, the worl will turn and say "I told you so".

Considering all 32K of those doctors only serviced 25% of the population, having 17K serve everyone is still better.

Are they servicing everyone? Have you got sources? Could I see those sources, including citations for 25%?
Also, I'd like to point out that many Iraqis can't visit doctors anymore because of fear of going out.

Oh the problems with pretending Saddam's regime was better, is this the first time one smacked you upside the face?

The true face of American foreign policy? "Nananananna"?
As a representative of the American government, you're not exactly dispelling the attitude which makes America a target in the eyes of half the world.

Thats compared to ALL medicine being hard to come by in Iraq before. But hell, under Saddam even if they had medice it wasn't like the Kurds or Shia would have had a chance to get them anyway.

The great lie propagated by the Americans: the mass opression of non Sunnis.
Sure, the major government posts were occupied by Sunnis, and Iraq was a nominally Sunni state, but the Iraqi army was comprised of Shia and Sunni likewise, as were facets of every single bit of quotidien life.
You trumpet the liberation like it was the finding of Nordhausen or something.

Wow, you mean during a time of revolutionary social change and political upheaval standards of living slip! I mean, that is just entirely unprecidented! That has never ever been observed before!

The Iraqi economy is buggered, and people can't afford the simplest things.

They used to vote in Iraq before? Oh, is this another laughable instance of people pretending Iraqi society wasn't mysoginstic before 2003? Or is it another laughable instance of people pretending not having to wear head scarfs is preferable to not being able to vote?

They used to be equals in Iraq. Various women were in fairly high government posts.

There was no Sharia law. No honour killings. No opression of women because they were women.
Now the risk being massacred on a daily basis (I guess in a way, they are equal to men since they risk being massacred on a daily basis)

False. But there was all sorts of other violence around to make up for it, and given Saddam's death tolls a whole lot more of it.

All sorts of violence? True, but perpetrated by the state fairly discriminately.
But you say there was sectarian violence?
A lie.

Were young men being shot for having the name "Omar"?
You know, they found mass graves of men all named "Omar", a traditional Sunni name. Shia death-squads (probably armed by the US accidentally) go around murdering people because of their given names.

Beheaded bodies are being dumped on a daily basis.

Was this happening prior to 2003?

That depends on what they eventually return to, which I have never said is a guarunteed good result. However, many of those refugees now lead better lives in other Arab and Western countries, or at the very least equivalent. Unless you were a Sunni living by walking on the heads of the oppressed before 2003, I am sure you cry for them.

Oh grand. The fact that you've been forced to leave your country is okay?
Do you have any idea about Iraqi nationalism? They have been robbed of their right as a sovereign citizen of Iraq, and must bear the stigma of being a refugee. Half their families are still in Iraq.
Your callousness is, quite frankly, disgusting.

Cool, lets errect a genocidal dictatorship so that they can be maintained. Sounds like a good trade.

Nah man, let's replace it with a genocidal anarchy where everyone
is a target.

BTW, none of those "points" above changes the fact that Saddam killed more children (and that is just children) than all the deaths in Iraq combined since 2003. You Fail.

"I fail". I'm glad to see you see this as a game. For mllions of Iraqis, this isn't a game.

Considering that violence has dropped drastically, it is doutful another 7 years at current levels would yeild greater numbers. Of course, if Saddam was still in power...

Oh it's cool only x people are being killed rather than y people.

Fuzzy maths, the trademark of American foreign policy.

 

[Patroklos]

The truth is noone knows because the US military doesn't give a . .. .. .. . how many iraqis die.

And you think you can be taken seriously after saying this stuff why? I would appreciate it if you would not assume who I care about and don't, thanks.

Are you including the 500,000 children that died because of the sanctions?

Our sanctions didn't keep medicine out of Iraq, it was one of many exceptions. Medicine made it to Iraq all the time, it just didn't say there. I wonder whose fault that was...

The children killed by American targetting of Iraqi infrastructure , health services and electrical/water grid?

We went over this the last time this foamed out of your mouth, and you disappeared from the thread when asked for any instance of the US bombing essential services between 1991-2003. I renew the challenge, because I fail to see how letting a few SAM sites remain intact would have saved any children.

Chance? What chance? You really think Iraq is going to turn out to be anything less than another Lebanon?".

Which for 75% of the population is better than Saddam era Iraq. There is the caveat here, however, that if it becomes like Lebennon or better or worse than Lebanon its the Iraqis own decisions that will make ti that way. I know you may chaff at brown people determining their own futures, but why not give them a chance?

The true face of American foreign policy? "Nananananna"?
As a representative of the American government, you're not exactly dispelling the attitude which makes America a target in the eyes of half the world.

I am sorry if me not joining in on your Saddam apologism band wagon annoys you. Recognizing there was NOTHING redeeming about Saddam is exactly how I want to appear in the eyes of the world. Aren't you from Germany? You'd think you might understand the concept.

The Iraqi economy is buggered, and people can't afford the simplest things.

That is not entirely true, but then again the economy is certainly no worse.

There was no Sharia law. No honour killings. No opression of women because they were women.

You know, I find it absolutely hilarious that people such as yourself seem to believe that in a nation whose only expression of authority was murderous force linked to a trabalistic and Arab culture was somhow not mysoginistic prior to 2003. I mean, obviously the Iraq of 2001 was all about nurture and not might makes right, and I am sure that when Ali came home from torturing dissidents in prison he let his wife harrage him about forgetting to pick up milk on his way home.

Didn't Pakistan have a female prime minister, how is the home life for women over there?

All sorts of violence? True, but perpetrated by the state fairly discriminately.

Oh, well then its all Okay!

But you say there was sectarian violence?
A lie.

Oh really, so when the Sunni Republican Guard wipes out the Shia Swamp Arabs what do we call that? You know, just because because it is organized genocide does not mean it isn't sectarian.

Were young men being shot for having the name "Omar"?

If you were Shia it didn't matter what your name was.

You know, they found mass graves of men all named "Omar", a traditional Sunni name. Shia death-squads (probably armed by the US accidentally) go around murdering people because of their given names.

So you are okay with ethnic violence as long as it is only Shia getting murdered and as long as it is done by people in clean uniforms instead of bandanas and rags?

Beheaded bodies are being dumped on a daily basis.

Was this happening prior to 2003?

No, prior to 2003 Qusi (sp?) just crushed people's heads under car tires.

Perhaps it is just me, but I tend to care more about how much brutal violence is going on more than which form of equally brutal violence is going on.

Oh grand. The fact that you've been forced to leave your country is okay?

You seem to think they were forced in all cases, which is not true. A good many of them would have left at any time after 1991 if they could, but of course the couldn't. After 2003 they could, so they did.

And millions have been forced to leave, but honestly what were you expecting? Is this supposed to be a clean pain free process? Are refugees not returning back to their homes as we speak? Maybe they will look at their two years in Syria as a hardship born to return latter to a life of freedom from state terror. I guess it depends, as I repeat it is by no means a certainty. But then again a chance at that is something they didn't have under Saddam.

Nah man, let's replace it with a genocidal anarchy where everyone
is a target.

But yet kills millions of less people and maybe eventually no people? Sounds like a deal.

"I fail". I'm glad to see you see this as a game. For mllions of Iraqis, this isn't a game.

Is this where you pretend to care about Iraqis after you just spent pages explaining how they were much better off under a dictatorship that killed far more of them a year for his amusement than die during a stuggle of national definition and self determination? I am sure they appreciate your concern, especially the Sunni

Oh it's cool only x people are being killed rather than y people.

No, you are confusing my position with yours. That is you. Actually, your position is that it's cool that only more x people are killed rather than fewer X and y people.

To me, it is BETTER than less people x+y are being killed than before.

 

[skadistic]

Thanks for this quote

Calling people "Pallies", lack logic, check.

No it shows a lack of effort.

 

[Merkinball]

Noncon, ya know I love you buddy, but...

-a report last month put the potential number of deaths since 2003 at 1.2 million

Where are the other 1.1 million bodies?

The truth is noone knows because the US military doesn't give a . .. .. .. . how many iraqis die.

That hurts dude. That really hurts.

 

[MobBoss]

You do realise there isn't any fighting after one side throws in the towel, correct?

You do realize how wrong you are with this statement? History is rife with examples of where fighting continued although one side had apparently 'thrown in the towel'.

If you need specific examples, I will be more than happy to provide many for you in order to educate you on the issue.