Our toll in Iraq is now 4*10³

That is jaw-dropping stupid. I don't what's worse, having your argument torn to shreds by jgcmacg, or your attemp to keep peddling that bullshit.

 

Alley - all the numbers are out of context.

Someone posts the number 4,000 as if just by mentioning the number it negates any debate about the war.

The US lost over 19,000 troops in just 41 days during the Battle of the Bulge. I know I should poke the hornets nest here but the knee jerk reaction that I know comes out of some of the people here is hard to resist. And I know that the people who will call me stupid for mentioning the battle of the Bulge are the same people who crow about the War in Iraq lasting longer than World War II (as if that war started December 7, 1941).

 

Already asked and answered you duplicitous, ignorant chickenhawk fuck.

...a common distortion of U.S. military death figures by conservative pundits who misleadingly have compared combat deaths under the Bush administration to all military deaths -- combat and noncombat -- under the Clinton administration. The U.S. Department of Defense's Defense Manpower Data Center Statistical Information Analysis Division figures of combat and noncombat deaths of U.S. military personnel show that during Clinton's eight-year presidency, full-time, active-duty military personnel deaths totaled 7,500. In contrast, full-time, active-duty military personnel deaths during the first six years of Bush's presidency have totaled 8,792.

http://colorado.mediamatters.org/items/200706080003

 

Ignornant chickenhawk fuck? Nice - do you kiss your mother with that mouth? Is that how you were taught to debate a subject? Do you think calling names makes you right? Or do you think it makes you cool?

Serioulsy - I'm curious.

Can you point out where I've insulted you in the past? If you can then maybe that behavior is warranted. If not then you have a lot of maturing to do.

 

The Germans and Japanese were allies. After Japan attacked Pearl Harbor, Germany declared war on the U.S. on Dec. 8, 1941. I read an article (either Time or Newsweek) about 18 years ago that said that one of Hitler's mistakes was declaring war on the U.S. Had he not, Roosevelt would have had a difficult time getting Americans to support another European war, due to a large segment of the population being isolationist.

Of course, Iraq never declared war on the U.S., unless you believe Dick Cheney's belief that they had a role in 9/11.

 

Not sure that I agree with you that merely posting the numbers "negates any debate." But it IS relevant in discussing the war's cost, from a very human perspective, when the premise of the war was flawed to begin with.

If the military lost x number of people through Osprey crashes, the number alone doesn't provide the positives or negatives of that aircraft, but it does bring to light a POTENTIAL problem that's worth further investigation.

To see the number 4,000 U.S. dead during this war, it absolutely SHOULD force us to re-examine our efforts to answer a couple of very basic questions: 1) Should we be there still? 2) Have we accomplished our mission? 3) Is there a way to reduce the number of deaths we're experiencing, beyond just pulling out.

 

I think a good way to debate a subject is to present facts that blow somebody else's argument out of the water. You know, kind of like he did with his first post. The fact that you're still arguing this is telling.

What else would we expect from a simpleton like you. John Kerry. New Orleans. Comparing Iraq to WWII.

You're really embarassing yourself here.

 

In this particular case, the numbers make me right.

I see you didn't contest "duplicitous." And you insult us all when you post your incessant talk-radio lies and website half-truths.

You're a bloodthirsty fucking ghoul, Chris, a chicken-hearted broadband warmonger who thinks patriotism is defined by a body count. I'm sick of the America your ignorance and self-delusion forces me to live in.

Feel insulted?

Stop posting insulting lies that get good people and innocent people killed.

 

When looking at the alleged "low" 4,000 number of deaths, one number that gets lost is that of the wounded: 30,000.

That's thousands and thousands of people who WOULD have died in 1917 or 1944 or 1953 or 1968 . . . but did not die because of the miracles performed by the doctors over there.

Do not let those miracles make this conflict appear cleaner than it is. It is ugly, horrible, ghastly and often gruesome. It's war.

 

The only thing more depressing than 4,000 -- or people like Chris L -- is that we'll probably see a "death toll hits 5,000" story before anything truly changes. I hope I'm wrong.

 

I don't feel insulted. I'm amused by people like you.

And I'm the ghoul? 2muchcoffee tries to be clever using the number of dead servicemen to spout his beliefs and I'm the ghoul?

Try using the ignore button for me or is that not allowed in the America that I'm forcing you to live in? I'm not going to put you on ignore because you amuse me.