U.S. Troops in Iraq See Highest Injury Toll Yet

[KK]

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: KK

Who's the troll again? The one who started this flame bait thread? You must be proud of yourself.

Washington Post writing a fact that over 1,000 our our Troops have been severly injured during the month of August is a "flame bait thread"?

The Neocons are getting more disgusting everyday with no respect to our heros fighting for our Country despite a illegimate cause.

Dave, Dave, Dave, you know damn well he posted this and then put his little two cents at the end to try and stir up sh1t. That's all conjur does, it's what he good at. That and flipping burgers and being pissed off at the world for him losing his decent job.

I wouldn't except you to be able to understand either, I believe you're in the same boat.

KK

How would you like a little vacation for your uncalled for personal attacks?

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: KK

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: KK

Who's the troll again? The one who started this flame bait thread? You must be proud of yourself.

Washington Post writing a fact that over 1,000 our our Troops have been severly injured during the month of August is a "flame bait thread"?

The Neocons are getting more disgusting everyday with no respect to our heros fighting for our Country despite a illegimate cause.

Dave, Dave, Dave, you know damn well he posted this and then put his little two cents at the end to try and stir up sh1t. That's all conjur does, it's what he good at. That and flipping burgers and being pissed off at the world for him losing his decent job.

I wouldn't except you to be able to understand either, I believe you're in the same boat.

KK

Ayup, we're both obviously directly affected by Bush Policy in the opposite way of the Rich Elitist's in here that benefit from said Bush Rich friendly Policy.

The Elitist Neocons in here may call it "stirring up sh1t", while we call it "Fighting to get our Country and American Dream back", under Bush it is only a Dream for the Rich while a Nightmare for the rest.

 

[1EZduzit]

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: CycloWizard

Originally posted by: conjur
Mission Accomplished!!
Oh wait....

Now we can safely add hoping US troops die or get shot to your hoping the economy tanks.

"Cheney", you fvcking pos troll

Just ignore "PsychoBlizzard". He wouldn't know an original thought if he was lucky enough to have one.

 

[tmservo]

Sometimes, things are difficult. I often think the greatest mistake the west ever made was to listen to France and avoid going into Rwanda. over 1 million dead. Sometimes, you make hard choices.

 

[raildogg]

Originally posted by: tmservo
Sometimes, things are difficult. I often think the greatest mistake the west ever made was to listen to France and avoid going into Rwanda. over 1 million dead. Sometimes, you make hard choices.

That was one of the greater tragedies to occur in recent times. Cant believe we let things like that happen today.

 

[1EZduzit]

Originally posted by: CycloWizard

Originally posted by: umbrella39
1. You avoided my question entirely. I'll take that as a no. I honestly believe that our presence is growing the numbers exponentially. But that is just an opinion. We need to balance crushing the ones that we have to deal with now and figure out a way to stop creating more.
2. 33 other countries in Iraq doing exactly what?
3. So the only alternative to Saddam is our democracy, eh? Got it. Nice view of the world. Keep telling yourself the Iraqis love and want our way of life, whatever gets you through the night.

1. Saying that there is no substantial fighting going on now dodges the question of when Iraqi insurgency will die down? If you say so... I guess I'll change my answer to just 'now' then, is that simple enough for you?
2. 33 other countries in Iraq contributing troops.
3. OK Strawman, listen: I said, albeit sarcastically, that it is unreasonable for you to assume that the Iraqi people don't want a democracy. I also inferred, again sarcastically, that the only government that any of them can remember is a horribly oppressive dictatorship, and you're saying that they will refuse democracy. I never said that the Iraqis want our way of life - I was just pointing out that they MIGHT, whereas you're arguing that they definitely don't.

If you had half a brain in your head you'd see that your the strawman. You're so blinded by your hate of anyone who disagrees with you that you can't see any facts objectively. You only see the facts in the light that is most favorable to your opinion. You don't answer dirsct questions and your the first one to start throwing the insults. In short your just an immature little brat, just like your hero, GWB. Too bad for you.

 

[Darkhawk28]

Originally posted by: raildogg

Originally posted by: tmservo
Sometimes, things are difficult. I often think the greatest mistake the west ever made was to listen to France and avoid going into Rwanda. over 1 million dead. Sometimes, you make hard choices.

That was one of the greater tragedies to occur in recent times. Cant believe we let things like that happen today.

Our foreign policy has for too long been not been based on the good of humanity but for the good of ROI.

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: raildogg

Originally posted by: tmservo
Sometimes, things are difficult. I often think the greatest mistake the west ever made was to listen to France and avoid going into Rwanda. over 1 million dead. Sometimes, you make hard choices.

That was one of the greater tragedies to occur in recent times. Cant believe we let things like that happen today.

If people want to slaughter each other there['s not much we can do about it. The only time we should intervene is when it effects our National Interests like in the Balkans.

 

[cKGunslinger]

Originally posted by: AnandTech Moderator

How would you like a little vacation for your uncalled for personal attacks?

In all fairness, Mod, KK's post was an uncalled-for personal attack, but so were quite a few of the others' posts, including conjur's.


Now, to try and bring this back around to being On Topic:

Originally posted by: dmcowen674
Ayup, we're both obviously directly affected by Bush Policy in the opposite way of the Rich Elitist's in here that benefit from said Bush Rich friendly Policy.

Oops! Let me try again!

Originally posted by: umbrella39
You would. Keep telling us it OK for more of our soldiers to die for this valient cause of making Iraqi safe again for its inhabitants. Your definition of success is sickening. I'll ask you a question or two if you don't mind, do you think the supply of insurgents are ever going to dwindle to a point where we can safly say that Iraq is a democray now and is safe? Do you think we can continue to build this nation up without the support of an international community? Whether we pull out in 2 months or 2 years, after we have left, it is going to be business as usual. You know why? They DON'T want our values and our democracy.

Ah, that's better! Had to go quite a ways up to find that. Having our soldiers die anywhere is obvious a tragedy, but it is still something they volunteered for with full disclosure being given to them of the possibilities of what could happen to them. You can't argue that the lives of some of the innocent have been saved since Saddam has been removed and will no longer be in charge. You CAN argue that we went into war under false pretenses of WMD and such, but that's not what you are doing. If you want to assume that Bush made a mistake going into Iraq, go ahead. But what you are arguing is the equivalent of being a passenger in car that has taken a wrong turn. Instead of working through traffic to get to the safest route out, you are suggesting the driver slam on the brakes and reverse down the interstate. Not exacatly as safe exit plan.

Now, as far as the insurgents go, they will eventually dwindle to a number that can be handled by the country's fledgling army and police force. I don't know how long that will take, but we are progressing towards that.

We *do* have the support of the international community. No, we don't have *everyone* on our side, but have we ever? Could we ever?

For you to assume that "they don't want our values and our democracy" is pretty bold. If you can argue that Bush is wrong for assuming they DO want our help, how can you assume that they DON'T? I would be willing to bet that the administration has a better grasp of the social and political climate of the area than the average P&N poster.

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: cKGunslinger

Now, as far as the insurgents go, they will eventually dwindle to a number that can be handled by the country's fledgling army and police force. I don't know how long that will take, but we are progressing towards that.

You think? How much of Iraq do we actually control?

For you to assume that "they don't want our values and our democracy" is pretty bold. If you can argue that Bush is wrong for assuming they DO want our help, how can you assume that they DON'T? I would be willing to bet that the administration has a better grasp of the social and political climate of the area than the average P&N poster.

If they were wrong about Iraq's vast quantities of WMDs, direct ties with Al Qaeda and having an advanced Nuclear Weapons program what makes you so sure they are right about the political climate in Iraq?

 

[cKGunslinger]

Originally posted by: 1EZduzit

If you had half a brain in your head you'd see that your the strawman. You're so blinded by your hate of anyone who disagrees with you that you can't see any facts objectively. You only see the facts in the light that is most favorable to your opinion. You don't answer dirsct questions and your the first one to start throwing the insults. In short your just an immature little brat, just like your hero, GWB. Too bad for you.

...

Ok, after the laughter has died down, I can post. You do realize that this EXACT same notion (minus the GWB part) can be just as truthfully applied to you, based upon the content of the majority of your posts, right? I mean, seriously, READ what you just wrote! There are no fewer than a dozen times in the last few days that I've read some of your posts and thought this exact same paragraph.

I think perhaps I shall save this and use it against you as I see fit from now on. Watch out!

 

[cKGunslinger]

Originally posted by: Red Dawn
You think? How much of Iraq do we actually control?

No idea.

If they were wrong about Iraq's vast quantities of WMDs, direct ties with Al Qaeda and having an advanced Nuclear Weapons program what makes you so sure they are right about the political climate in Iraq?

Who said I was sure? But given the choice of the administration's assertions vs those of an anonymous P&N poster, whom I know next-to-nothing about, other than his dislike for this administration and the majority of itis policies, I'm going to go with Bush on this one. That's doesn't mean that he's necessarily right, but the odds are better, IMO.

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: cKGunslinger

Originally posted by: Red Dawn
You think? How much of Iraq do we actually control?

No idea.

If they were wrong about Iraq's vast quantities of WMDs, direct ties with Al Qaeda and having an advanced Nuclear Weapons program what makes you so sure they are right about the political climate in Iraq?

Who said I was sure? But given the choice of the administration's assertions vs those of an anonymous P&N poster, whom I know next-to-nothing about, other than his dislike for this administration and the majority of itis policies, I'm going to go with Bush on this one. That's doesn't mean that he's necessarily right, but the odds are better, IMO.

On the contrary, many of them know what they read thus their dislike for the Dub.

 

[cKGunslinger]

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

On the contrary, many of them know what they read thus their dislike for the Dub.

True. And many of them know what they read, thus their support for the Dub. What's your point? That people have differing opinions on different subjects? I don't think anyone's contesting that idea.

You're not one of those people here who, if Bush loses the elction, will say that it was because the people saw the "truth" and got rid of that liar for good, but who, if Bush won, would say that is was because the Bush administration "brainwashed" the people into believing the lies, are you? If so, We can just halt this thread right here, as it has no hopes of progressing intelligently. Those kind of people (and the one argue similarly for Kerry) cannot be reasoned with and are generally a waste of time.

 

[Don Vito Corleone]

Originally posted by: raildogg

That was one of the greater tragedies to occur in recent times. Cant believe we let things like that happen today.

It's happening right now in the Sudan and we don't care. It barely gets news coverage. We are too busy, er, fighting the war on terror.

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: cKGunslinger

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

On the contrary, many of them know what they read thus their dislike for the Dub.

True. And many of them know what they read, thus their support for the Dub. What's your point? That people have differing opinions on different subjects? I don't think anyone's contesting that idea.

You're not one of those people here who, if Bush loses the elction, will say that it was because the people saw the "truth" and got rid of that liar for good, but who, if Bush won, would say that is was because the Bush administration "brainwashed" the people into believing the lies, are you? If so, We can just halt this thread right here, as it has no hopes of progressing intelligently. Those kind of people (and the one argue similarly for Kerry) cannot be reasoned with and are generally a waste of time.

I would never say they were brainwashed. Misled, partisan, disgusted or had no confidence in his opponent yes.

 

[Moonbeam]

I don't know how it will go in Iraq but we can see some of the price. I wonder what the utilitarians think about our invasion.

 

[cKGunslinger]

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

I would never say they were brainwashed. Misled, partisan, disgusted or had no confidence in his opponent yes.

For sh1ts 'n giggles, would you care to break that down a bit? I'll start with what I think:

Misled - 5%
Partisan - 40%
Disgusted or no confidence in Kerry - 50%
other - 5%

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: cKGunslinger

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

I would never say they were brainwashed. Misled, partisan, disgusted or had no confidence in his opponent yes.

For sh1ts 'n giggles, would you care to break that down a bit? I'll start with what I think:

Misled - 5%
Partisan - 40%
Disgusted or no confidence in Kerry - 50%
other - 5%

The fsck if I know!

 

[alchemize]

Originally posted by: AnandTech Moderator

How would you like a little vacation for your uncalled for personal attacks?


In all fairness, Mod, KK's post was an uncalled-for personal attack, but so were quite a few of the others' posts, including conjur's.

Look under their name, it explains everything...

 

[raildogg]

Originally posted by: cKGunslinger

Originally posted by: AnandTech Moderator

How would you like a little vacation for your uncalled for personal attacks?

In all fairness, Mod, KK's post was an uncalled-for personal attack, but so were quite a few of the others' posts, including conjur's.


Now, to try and bring this back around to being On Topic:

Originally posted by: dmcowen674
Ayup, we're both obviously directly affected by Bush Policy in the opposite way of the Rich Elitist's in here that benefit from said Bush Rich friendly Policy.

Oops! Let me try again!

Originally posted by: umbrella39
You would. Keep telling us it OK for more of our soldiers to die for this valient cause of making Iraqi safe again for its inhabitants. Your definition of success is sickening. I'll ask you a question or two if you don't mind, do you think the supply of insurgents are ever going to dwindle to a point where we can safly say that Iraq is a democray now and is safe? Do you think we can continue to build this nation up without the support of an international community? Whether we pull out in 2 months or 2 years, after we have left, it is going to be business as usual. You know why? They DON'T want our values and our democracy.

Ah, that's better! Had to go quite a ways up to find that. Having our soldiers die anywhere is obvious a tragedy, but it is still something they volunteered for with full disclosure being given to them of the possibilities of what could happen to them. You can't argue that the lives of some of the innocent have been saved since Saddam has been removed and will no longer be in charge. You CAN argue that we went into war under false pretenses of WMD and such, but that's not what you are doing. If you want to assume that Bush made a mistake going into Iraq, go ahead. But what you are arguing is the equivalent of being a passenger in car that has taken a wrong turn. Instead of working through traffic to get to the safest route out, you are suggesting the driver slam on the brakes and reverse down the interstate. Not exacatly as safe exit plan.

Now, as far as the insurgents go, they will eventually dwindle to a number that can be handled by the country's fledgling army and police force. I don't know how long that will take, but we are progressing towards that.

We *do* have the support of the international community. No, we don't have *everyone* on our side, but have we ever? Could we ever?

For you to assume that "they don't want our values and our democracy" is pretty bold. If you can argue that Bush is wrong for assuming they DO want our help, how can you assume that they DON'T? I would be willing to bet that the administration has a better grasp of the social and political climate of the area than the average P&N poster.

The Iraqis want freedom like everyone else. Give them democracy and they'll love it

 

[CycloWizard]

Originally posted by: 1EZduzit
If you had half a brain in your head you'd see that your the strawman. You're so blinded by your hate of anyone who disagrees with you that you can't see any facts objectively. You only see the facts in the light that is most favorable to your opinion. You don't answer dirsct questions and your the first one to start throwing the insults. In short your just an immature little brat, just like your hero, GWB. Too bad for you.

A point-by-point rebuttal of his statements makes me 'the first one to start throwing the insults'? Unfortunately for you, sir, not one of your statements in this post are borne out be the facts. As it turns out, in the short time I've been reading these forums, I've not seen anyone BUT me admit that they even MIGHT be wrong on a subject. Further, I'd bet my bottom dollar that I'm one of a handful of people here who is open minded enough to consider compromising or changing his mind on the issues, as I have done several times, though you might neglect that because it doesn't suit your current character assassination attempts.

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: cKGunslinger

Now, as far as the insurgents go, they will eventually dwindle to a number that can be handled by the country's fledgling army and police force. I don't know how long that will take, but we are progressing towards that.

You think? How much of Iraq do we actually control?

For you to assume that "they don't want our values and our democracy" is pretty bold. If you can argue that Bush is wrong for assuming they DO want our help, how can you assume that they DON'T? I would be willing to bet that the administration has a better grasp of the social and political climate of the area than the average P&N poster.

If they were wrong about Iraq's vast quantities of WMDs, direct ties with Al Qaeda and having an advanced Nuclear Weapons program what makes you so sure they are right about the political climate in Iraq?

If you're arguing that we don't have control of Iraq, the burden of proof is on you. Last I checked, we have that country about as well under control as we have the US under control - I'd be willing to bet crime statistics are very similar, minus the one car bombing that occurred yesterday (the first significant violence in two weeks).

Originally posted by: DonVito

Originally posted by: raildogg

That was one of the greater tragedies to occur in recent times. Cant believe we let things like that happen today.

It's happening right now in the Sudan and we don't care. It barely gets news coverage. We are too busy, er, fighting the war on terror.

Sudan doesn't make news because the case for it is being handled by the UN, which means it's going to go through a long, slow, painful process before progress is made. The UN's lack of quick response on this subject is costing tens of thousands of lives - would anyone here support the US going in unilaterally here?

 

[Gaard]

Originally posted by: CycloWizard

Originally posted by: conjur
Mission Accomplished!!
Oh wait....

Now we can safely add hoping US troops die or get shot to your hoping the economy tanks. USA!
Unfortunately for you, there isn't really any fighting going on there right now, since Al Sadr gave it up. Keep rooting for the bad guy though. :thumbsup:
Oh, and despite your selective news-gathering abilities, there was a purpose to the declaration of 'mission accomplished.' That let us get the Red Cross and other humanitarian groups on the ground. Keep spouting off what Kerry has told you though, sheep.

I just want to interrupt here a moment and ask for a link for confirmation of this. I haven't heard this one before and was wondering if this reason was officially given by someone in the administration.

 

[AndrewR]

Originally posted by: conjur
So, Mission Accomplished was a fraud?

And, Clinton had no choice in Somalia...esp. after the Pentagon f-ed up, costing 18 lives in that Blackhawk Down incident.

You don't see Saddam in power, do you? Perhaps your brain is too wrapped up in anti-Bush slogans to see the connection between that fact and Mission Accomplished.

Clinton was the REASON for the 18 lives lost in Mogadishu. HIS political appointee denied the Army heavy armor on the fear that it would "escalate" the situation there. Blame your own fvcking boy for that screw-up because a few Bradleys would have saved a LOT of lives since we wouldn't have had to wait for Pakistani armor and would not have had to rely on unarmored Humvees for transport. Get it?

Washington Post writing a fact that over 1,000 our our Troops have been severly injured during the month of August is a "flame bait thread"?

The article says "might have suffered" severe injuries, which means they have no idea and are just including that little bit to provide ammunition to anti-Bush trolls like yourself. The majority of the injuries occurring are limb injuries because of the effectiveness of Kevlar helmets and Interceptor vests with ceramic plates. When was the last time you talked to someone who just returned from Iraq?

 

[AndrewR]

Originally posted by: DonVito

Originally posted by: raildogg

That was one of the greater tragedies to occur in recent times. Cant believe we let things like that happen today.

It's happening right now in the Sudan and we don't care. It barely gets news coverage. We are too busy, er, fighting the war on terror.

Are you implying that the GWOT is somehow less important than the Sudan? Explain your last sentence, please.