I hope this is the right place

[Diuretic]

http://www.abcactionnews.com/mostpopular/story.aspx?content_id=0cf42d39-be79-4ed0-903a-269a194c42f8

Major Dennis, you're a top bloke.

IRAQ -- Their friendship began half way across the world in Iraq, when St. Petersburg native Major Brian Dennis encountered a mixed breed dog in Anbar Province. The dog had been savagely abused and his ears cut off.

The marine decided to call him Nubbs.

In e-mails to his mother, Marsha Cargo in Tierra Verde, Major Dennis wrote how he was "dumbfounded" when he learned Nubbs' ears were cut off purposely by an Iraqi to make him tough and more alert. Nubbs, he said, was ordained a fighting dog.

Four months passed, and the bond between man and his four legged friend grew. Nubbs, was dealt severe blows in his short life, including being stabbed by a screwdriver. The major shared his distress with mother.

“He tried sleeping with him that night because it was 18 degree temperature and he was afraid he was not going to live through the night. So out of his back pack, he took Neosporin and covered the wound,” Cargo said.

Major Dennis nursed Nubbs back to health...and here is where this friendship takes a remarkable turn: Major Dennis was ordered to move his squadron 70 miles away. He complied.

His mother shared her son's surprise of a lifetime, “Two days later he was out there working on a vehicle in the front yard and all of a sudden here comes Nubbs. He had tracked Brian 70 miles across the desert in 18 degree temperature while being wounded.”

Despite strict rules, Major Dennis wrote to his mother, he had to help this dog. "I won't even address the gauntlet. He had to run off a pack of dogs, wolves and god knows what else to get here...when he arrived he looked like he had been through a war zone," Dennis wrote.

Weeks went by, and Nubbs was dealt another blow,

“Someone told on them that they had the dog and they had 4 days to get rid of him or Nubbs was going to be shot,” Cargo said.

That’s when the Marine made it his mission to get Nubbs to safety. He wrote, “Nubbs was going to America, this dog had been through a lifetime of fighting war, abuse, and had tracked our team over 70 miles of harsh desert (and) was going to live the good life."

The major started an e-mail campaign that crisscrossed continents. Within two days there was three thousand dollars to bring Nubbs home.

“The hardest part was getting him across the Jordanian border,” Cargo told us.

But, in keeping with the rest of this story, the duo defied the odds. Major Dennis was able to get Nubbs into Jordan. A family here in The U.S. will take care of him there until these friends can be reunited.

“I almost feel like Brian is his guardian angel and maybe he is Brian's guardian angel,” Cargo said.

 

[Helios]

http://www.abcactionnews.com/mostpopular/story.aspx?content_id=0cf42d39-be79-4ed0-903a-269a194c42f8

Major Dennis, you're a top bloke.

Nubbs was going to America, this dog had been through a lifetime of fighting war, abuse, and had tracked our team over 70 miles of harsh desert (and) was going to live the good life."

Now if only Americans were as concerned with the Iraqi civilians getting slaughtered by the truckload...

 

[CSM]

Now if only Americans were as concerned with the Iraqi civilians getting slaughtered by the truckload...

Of course we don't care about slaughtering Iraqiis....that is what the US is all about...kill every one that is not like us and doesn't believe or think like us.....

oops...that's the islamic extremists so never mind!

I take it then its ok for those same extremists to slaughter Americans though at least in your book because "we deserve it".

 

[Helios]

Of course we don't care about slaughtering Iraqiis....that is what the US is all about...kill every one that is not like us and doesn't believe or think like us.....

oops...that's the islamic extremists so never mind!

I take it then its ok for those same extremists to slaughter Americans though at least in your book because "we deserve it".

Wow, you got all that from what I said? You give a whole new meaning to spin.

I never said the U.S. didn't care about slaughtering Iraqis. I never said the U.S. killed everyone that isn't like "us." I never said "we deserve it."

Now, what were you saying? I want you to go and add up all the murders/killings perpetuated by "Islamic extremists," then add up all the deaths perpetuated by the U.S. government. When you've got all that, compare the numbers. Tell me what you come up with. Let's see, we've killed over a million civilians in Iraq alone, I'd be interested to see similar figures the opposite direction.

 

[CSM]

Wow, you got all that from what I said? You give a whole new meaning to spin.

I never said the U.S. didn't care about slaughtering Iraqis. I never said the U.S. killed everyone that isn't like "us." I never said "we deserve it."

Now, what were you saying? I want you to go and add up all the murders/killings perpetuated by "Islamic extremists," then add up all the deaths perpetuated by the U.S. government. When you've got all that, compare the numbers. Tell me what you come up with. Let's see, we've killed over a million civilians in Iraq alone, I'd be interested to see similar figures the opposite direction.

First, show me the OFFICIAL source where you got that " over a million civilians in Iraq alone" .

A quote from your post:

"Now if only Americans were as concerned with the Iraqi civilians getting slaughtered by the truckload..."

I understand that you think eveyone who disagrees with you is nothing but a rock with lips but that quote sure implies to me that you believe that Americans are NOT concerned about "truckloads" of Iraqi civilians being slaughtered.

Granted, the rest I made up. I have to ask, however, why you think the US is killing millions instead of blaming the guys actually killing them...you know...the guys planting road side bombs and sending mentally ill people wearing suicide vests to the local market. Do you presume they are doing this because they are part of a great conspiracy concocted by some clandestine group desiring a "new world order" or what?


As for spin, all I can say is I am trying to learn from folks like you who couldn't tell it straight if they wanted too.

Finally, how many Iraqiis does a truck hold anyway? And after they are slaughtered, how many trucks does it take to haul that same load off to the dump?

 

[RetiredGySgt]

In order for us to have killed 1 million civilians in the 5 years we have been there we would have had to kill 526 a day with a few extra thrown in.

I think someone would have noticed that many dead bodies rotting in the streets, some hospital or morgue would have made out death certificates for them and the Iraq Government would have official figures supporting the claim.

Now if we look at actual verifiable deaths it is no where near that number, I believe last year the Iraq Goverment listed under 60000 killed.

Lets err on the side of the nay sayers though, shall we. I believe the most deaths ever claimed by the press was in the 200 250 range with lots of days with a hell of a lot less. So lets say 200 a day died due directly to the war. Of those 200 most would in fact have been killed by mortar attacks roadside bombs and suicide attacks. So we are down to maybe 50 as the most civilians ever actually claimed to have been killed directly by the US military.

Now assuming that we managed to kill 50 a day every day for the last 5 years ( and of course no one actually noticed us or it would be in the paper every day and on the wire) that would be 91,250 dead civilians.

Assuming 200 a day ( again a far fetched notion, since no such thing has been reported) that would be 365,000 dead.

No where near a million. No where even near the 600000 the last politically motivated publication claimed.

And of course no where near the number the Iraqi Government has records for.

 

[Helios]

First, show me the OFFICIAL source where you got that " over a million civilians in Iraq alone" .

I'm not talking a million civilians killed by bullets. I'm talking a million killed by a combination of pre-war bombing, destruction of public infrastructure and yes, the war. Add all that together, and you approach the figure of a million.

Updated Iraq Survey Affirms Earlier Mortality Estimates

Mortality Trends Comparable to Estimates by Those Using Other Counting Methods

Response to critics

As many as 654,965 more Iraqis may have died since hostilities began in Iraq in March 2003 than would have been expected under pre-war conditions, according to a survey conducted by researchers at the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health and Al Mustansiriya University in Baghdad. The deaths from all causes—violent and non-violent—are over and above the estimated 143,000 deaths per year that occurred from all causes prior to the March 2003 invasion.

http://www.jhsph.edu/publichealthnews/press_releases/2006/burnham_iraq_2006.html

Don't kid yourself, secret bombing has been going on for years before the war started. Here's one time they got caught:

It was a huge air assault: Approximately 100 US and British planes flew from Kuwait into Iraqi airspace. At least seven types of aircraft were part of this massive operation, including US F-15 Strike Eagles and Royal Air Force Tornado ground-attack planes. They dropped precision-guided munitions on Saddam Hussein's major western air-defense facility, clearing the path for Special Forces helicopters that lay in wait in Jordan. Earlier attacks had been carried out against Iraqi command and control centers, radar detection systems, Revolutionary Guard units, communication centers and mobile air-defense systems. The Pentagon's goal was clear: Destroy Iraq's ability to resist. This was war.

But there was a catch: The war hadn't started yet, at least not officially. This was September 2002 - a month before Congress had voted to give President Bush the authority he used to invade Iraq, two months before the United Nations brought the matter to a vote and more than six months before "shock and awe" officially began.

http://www.truthout.org/cgi-bin/artman/exec/view.cgi/37/11574

I understand that you think eveyone who disagrees with you is nothing but a rock with lips but that quote sure implies to me that you believe that Americans are NOT concerned about "truckloads" of Iraqi civilians being slaughtered.

Let's take a closer look at my post. It takes an eye for detail to understand the English language sometimes. I'll help you out.

A quote from my post:

"Now if only Americans were as concerned with the Iraqi civilians getting slaughtered by the truckload..."


The word "as" is pretty operative, because it implies both concern for the Iraqis on the part of Americans, as well as greater concern for trivial matters than important ones. Can we move on? Goody.

Granted, the rest I made up.

Think about how much time we could save if you spared me the bullshit insinuations.

I have to ask, however, why you think the US is killing millions instead of blaming the guys actually killing them...you know...the guys planting road side bombs and sending mentally ill people wearing suicide vests to the local market. Do you presume they are doing this because they are part of a great conspiracy concocted by some clandestine group desiring a "new world order" or what?

Let me ask you this: Do you think more civilian casualties have resulted from the multi-billion dollar bombing campaigns and destruction of Iraqi public infrastructure like water sanitation, hospitals, etc, or from suicide bombers? I think you vastly overestimate how many suicide bombers there are. The majority of the people of Iraq are just people like you and me, stuck in the middle of a fucked up situation. A situation that has only worsened since the U.S. invasion. So carpet bombing major cities and "suspected terrorist hideouts" MIGHT not be the best policy if you're trying to prevent civilian casualties...

As for spin, all I can say is I am trying to learn from folks like you who couldn't tell it straight if they wanted too.

If ever I've seen an empty and useless statement, this gotta be it. What are you actually saying here? "You're WRONG! And I'm RIGHT!"??? Talk about civilized discussion.

Finally, how many Iraqiis does a truck hold anyway? And after they are slaughtered, how many trucks does it take to haul that same load off to the dump?

What is that even supposed to mean? For your sake, I can only conclude you are joking..

 

[CSM]

I'm not talking a million civilians killed by bullets. I'm talking a million killed by a combination of pre-war bombing, destruction of public infrastructure and yes, the war. Add all that together, and you approach the figure of a million.

Which is it: "Let's see, we've killed over a million civilians in Iraq alone, I'd be interested to see similar figures the opposite direction." or is it: "Add all that together, and you approach the figure of a million."

Pre war Bombing????

http://www.jhsph.edu/publichealthnews/press_releases/2006/burnham_iraq_2006.html

Don't kid yourself, secret bombing has been going on for years before the war started. Here's one time they got caught:



http://www.truthout.org/cgi-bin/artman/exec/view.cgi/37/11574


So then you are indeed a conspiracy theory adherent....that explains a lot!


Let's take a closer look at my post. It takes an eye for detail to understand the English language sometimes. I'll help you out.

A quote from my post:

"Now if only Americans were as concerned with the Iraqi civilians getting slaughtered by the truckload..."


The word "as" is pretty operative, because it implies both concern for the Iraqis on the part of Americans, as well as greater concern for trivial matters than important ones. Can we move on? Goody.

That would be YOUR interpretation. Keep it up and you will be almost as good as Maineman and eventually even acquire some of his class.




Think about how much time we could save if you spared me the bullshit insinuations.

And think how much time we could save if you didn't try to post wild ass accusations as fact! It makes me laugh to read this sentence because that is EXACTLT what YOU posted and prompted my response.

Let me ask you this: Do you think more civilian casualties have resulted from the multi-billion dollar bombing campaigns and destruction of Iraqi public infrastructure like water sanitation, hospitals, etc, or from suicide bombers? I think you vastly overestimate how many suicide bombers there are.

The answer is obvious. I think you vastly oversetimate what the knuckle dragging, baby killing, bomb dropping wing nuts are doing over there and grossly underestimate how many suicide bombers there are.

The majority of the people of Iraq are just people like you and me, stuck in the middle of a fucked up situation. A situation that has only worsened since the U.S. invasion. So carpet bombing major cities and "suspected terrorist hideouts" MIGHT not be the best policy if you're trying to prevent civilian casualties...

Obviously, you have no idea what "carpet bombing" does. Talk about rhetoric/spin etc!

If ever I've seen an empty and useless statement, this gotta be it. What are you actually saying here? "You're WRONG! And I'm RIGHT!"??? Talk about civilized discussion.

There is no "civilized discussion" with people like you. You are not interested in "civilized discussion".

What is that even supposed to mean? For your sake, I can only conclude you are joking..

As for your last sentence, you are the one who brought up truckloads of slaughtered Iraquiis. Or where you the one joking? It takes an eye for detail to understand and use the English language properly and precisely .... just trying to help you out. Based on your original assertion that "over a million Iraqiis were killed" (which is now "approaching a million"), I was trying to figure out how many trucks it takes to not only accomodate that death rate but also determine the possible impact on traffic flow within the country of Iraq. I had assumed you were seeking a serious "civilized debate" ... how silly of me!

 

[Helios]

I'm not talking a million civilians killed by bullets. I'm talking a million killed by a combination of pre-war bombing, destruction of public infrastructure and yes, the war. Add all that together, and you approach the figure of a million.

Which is it: "Let's see, we've killed over a million civilians in Iraq alone, I'd be interested to see similar figures the opposite direction." or is it: "Add all that together, and you approach the figure of a million."

Pre war Bombing????

Tell me when you're ready to stop arguing semantics to distract from the point. Which is MANY civilians have died needlessly in Iraq. What have we accomplished there? What do you think the families of the dead have to say about the U.S. occupation?

http://www.jhsph.edu/publichealthnew...iraq_2006.html

Don't kid yourself, secret bombing has been going on for years before the war started. Here's one time they got caught:



http://www.truthout.org/cgi-bin/artm...w.cgi/37/11574


So then you are indeed a conspiracy theory adherent....that explains a lot!

Oh, am I? At least I'm a well informed conspiracy theorist who doesn't deceive himself about the reality of the losses in Iraq, or the reasons we went to war. I have yet to see anything corroborating your flailing denials and accusations.

Let's take a closer look at my post. It takes an eye for detail to understand the English language sometimes. I'll help you out.

A quote from my post:

"Now if only Americans were as concerned with the Iraqi civilians getting slaughtered by the truckload..."


The word "as" is pretty operative, because it implies both concern for the Iraqis on the part of Americans, as well as greater concern for trivial matters than important ones. Can we move on? Goody.

That would be YOUR interpretation. Keep it up and you will be almost as good as Maineman and eventually even acquire some of his class.

YEAH, its MY interpretation because it's MY POST. I happen to be the presiding authority on what MY posts mean. I don't know who Maineman is, but I'm guessing it's one of your backhanded attempt to insult me, yet again.




Think about how much time we could save if you spared me the bullshit insinuations.

And think how much time we could save if you didn't try to post wild ass accusations as fact! It makes me laugh to read this sentence because that is EXACTLT what YOU posted and prompted my response.
...


Let me ask you this: Do you think more civilian casualties have resulted from the multi-billion dollar bombing campaigns and destruction of Iraqi public infrastructure like water sanitation, hospitals, etc, or from suicide bombers? I think you vastly overestimate how many suicide bombers there are.

The answer is obvious. I think you vastly oversetimate what the knuckle dragging, baby killing, bomb dropping wing nuts are doing over there and grossly underestimate how many suicide bombers there are.

Got any evidence to support your claims?

The majority of the people of Iraq are just people like you and me, stuck in the middle of a fucked up situation. A situation that has only worsened since the U.S. invasion. So carpet bombing major cities and "suspected terrorist hideouts" MIGHT not be the best policy if you're trying to prevent civilian casualties...

Obviously, you have no idea what "carpet bombing" does. Talk about rhetoric/spin etc!

You aren't bringing anything to the table. Flat out denial of my position is not constructive. Got anything new to say?

If ever I've seen an empty and useless statement, this gotta be it. What are you actually saying here? "You're WRONG! And I'm RIGHT!"??? Talk about civilized discussion.

There is no "civilized discussion" with people like you. You are not interested in "civilized discussion".

See above comment.

What is that even supposed to mean? For your sake, I can only conclude you are joking..


As for your last sentence, you are the one who brought up truckloads of slaughtered Iraquiis. Or where you the one joking? It takes an eye for detail to understand and use the English language properly and precisely .... just trying to help you out. Based on your original assertion that "over a million Iraqiis were killed" (which is now "approaching a million"), I was trying to figure out how many trucks it takes to not only accomodate that death rate but also determine the possible impact on traffic flow within the country of Iraq. I had assumed you were seeking a serious "civilized debate" ... how silly of me!

ACTUALLY, yeah. I was pretty much joking around. The article was about a lost dog.. and I'm not the one who got serious with my allegations. YOU fabricated a nice fantasy position for me, which I then proceeded to debunk. That's how this got started.

 

[Helios]

http://www.justforeignpolicy.org/iraq/iraqdeaths.html

Good hunting.

[1.1 Million]

The number is shocking and sobering.

It is at least 10 times greater than most estimates cited in the US media, yet it is based on a scientific study of violent Iraqi deaths caused by the U.S.-led invasion of March 2003.

That study, published in prestigious medical journal The Lancet, estimated that over 600,000 Iraqis had been killed as a result of the invasion as of July 2006. Iraqis have continued to be killed since then. The graphic above provides a rough daily update of this number based on a rate of increase derived from the Iraq Body Count. (See the complete explanation.)

The estimate that over a million Iraqis have died received independent confirmation from a prestigious British polling agency in September 2007. Opinion Research Business estimated that 1.2 million Iraqis have been killed violently since the US invasion.

This devastating human toll demands greater recognition. It eclipses the Rwandan genocide and our leaders are directly responsible. Little wonder they do not publicly cite it. Here is simple HTML code to post the counter to your website and help spread the word.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

He is now down to "many" have been killed.

 

[CSM]

ACTUALLY, yeah. I was pretty much joking around. The article was about a lost dog.. and I'm not the one who got serious with my allegations. YOU fabricated a nice fantasy position for me, which I then proceeded to debunk. That's how this got started.

This got started because you wanted to take a backhanded swipe at the US. What you hadn't counted on was someone engaging you in the manner in which I did. You say you did not get serious about your allegations but sure as hell try like hell to defend them. You could have saved a lot of time by simply posting "I was kidding". You chose not to and instead tried to convince me (and others) of how smart you are.

We have gone from "over a million" to "nearly a million" to "many". You ask for comparative numbers and then when asked for YOUR source, you have nothing other than an opinion piece written by a bunch of anti war folks who made up a "death estimate calculator". I bet you have not even read the report they cite on the website. If you had, you would soon realize that the report also states just how unreliable their statistics are.

The point is, you were intentionally trolling. Guess what...you caught one!

 

[Truthmatters]

http://www.abcactionnews.com/mostpopular/story.aspx?content_id=0cf42d39-be79-4ed0-903a-269a194c42f8

Major Dennis, you're a top bloke.

Man I hope that young man makes it back to his dog.

 

[Helios]

This got started because you wanted to take a backhanded swipe at the US. What you hadn't counted on was someone engaging you in the manner in which I did. You say you did not get serious about your allegations but sure as hell try like hell to defend them. You could have saved a lot of time by simply posting "I was kidding". You chose not to and instead tried to convince me (and others) of how smart you are.

Still waiting for any evidence to substantiate your arguments and positions about Iraq. Beginning to think you're having trouble finding any. I'm not out to convince anyone of anything, I was giving you my opinion. If you don't like that, either challenge it with actual DATA or sit down and shut up.

We have gone from "over a million" to "nearly a million" to "many". You ask for comparative numbers and then when asked for YOUR source, you have nothing other than an opinion piece written by a bunch of anti war folks who made up a "death estimate calculator". I bet you have not even read the report they cite on the website. If you had, you would soon realize that the report also states just how unreliable their statistics are.

1. The government has historically ALWAYS understated civilian death numbers, in pretty much EVERY war in American history while the war is going on. Important and accurate information about a given conflict always surfaces in some remote corner of the media about 20 years after the fact.

2. The reason most "anti-war" people are exactly so is because they actually know the facts of war.

3. Approx. 28 million people live in Iraq, is it THAT hard to imagine .3 percent has been killed due to the war effort?

4. I have read the report on the website, but in my opinion, even if the number ARE inaccurate, even the most conservative (no pun intended) casualty estimates would be too high to justify, given the highly questionable motives and reasons given for entering the war.

The point is, you were intentionally trolling. Guess what...you caught one!

I can't decide who is more annoying, petty and cliche, the trolls or the people constantly spamming about trolling. Maybe if everyone just took it easy on this constant "trollin on the mind" attitude, it wouldn't even be a problem.

 

[CSM]

Still waiting for any evidence to substantiate your arguments and positions about Iraq. Beginning to think you're having trouble finding any. I'm not out to convince anyone of anything, I was giving you my opinion. If you don't like that, either challenge it with actual DATA or sit down and shut up.

Gee, I stated positions and arguments about Iraq? care to quote those? Guess what, I am making fun of your opinion with MY opinion...either present some facts to substantiate your opinion or sit down and shut up.

1. The government has historically ALWAYS understated civilian death numbers, in pretty much EVERY war in American history while the war is going on. Important and accurate information about a given conflict always surfaces in some remote corner of the media about 20 years after the fact.

Do you have any proof of that assertion or are you yanking stuff out of your ass again? That "remote corner" of the media is the same place alien babies come from.

2. The reason most "anti-war" people are exactly so is because they actually know the facts of war.

Sure they do. About as well as you know your "facts".

3. Approx. 28 million people live in Iraq, is it THAT hard to imagine .3 percent has been killed due to the war effort?

Ah, so now we are down to imagiation as a source. wwell. I guess that is as valid as anything else you have presented.

4. I have read the report on the website, but in my opinion, even if the number ARE inaccurate, even the most conservative (no pun intended) casualty estimates would be too high to justify, given the highly questionable motives and reasons given for entering the war.

That is an entirely different discussion and a very feeble (if not transparent) attempt to redirect our discussion. It tells me, however, that you are rather unsure of your "facts".


I can't decide who is more annoying, petty and cliche, the trolls or the people constantly spamming about trolling. Maybe if everyone just took it easy on this constant "trollin on the mind" attitude, it wouldn't even be a problem.

If everyone would just see the light and agree with you the whole world would be pretty rainbows and pink ponies too.

 

[Helios]

Still waiting for any evidence to substantiate your arguments and positions about Iraq. Beginning to think you're having trouble finding any. I'm not out to convince anyone of anything, I was giving you my opinion. If you don't like that, either challenge it with actual DATA or sit down and shut up.

Gee, I stated positions and arguments about Iraq? care to quote those? Guess what, I am making fun of your opinion with MY opinion...either present some facts to substantiate your opinion or sit down and shut up.

You're opinion isn't worth shit if you have nothing to back it up. I've given you plenty of evidence, and you've criticized it. That's all good and well, but do you actually have anything to SAY or are you just running your mouth?

1. The government has historically ALWAYS understated civilian death numbers, in pretty much EVERY war in American history while the war is going on. Important and accurate information about a given conflict always surfaces in some remote corner of the media about 20 years after the fact.

Do you have any proof of that assertion or are you yanking stuff out of your ass again? That "remote corner" of the media is the same place alien babies come from.

I wasn't referring to remote credential, I was referring to little-seen information. Google Chinagate. Google Gulf of Tonkin. Google Real ID, NAU, etc etc etc. And if we wanna talk about yanking stuff out our ass, I do believe you're the resident expert... still waiting for any evidence on your part.

2. The reason most "anti-war" people are exactly so is because they actually know the facts of war.


Sure they do. About as well as you know your "facts".

Denying the truth of war doesn't make it any better. Most people who have been affected by war aren't so ready to accept it.



3. Approx. 28 million people live in Iraq, is it THAT hard to imagine .3 percent has been killed due to the war effort?

Ah, so now we are down to imagiation as a source. wwell. I guess that is as valid as anything else you have presented.

Actually, that was just facts from the CIA database combined with some simple division. I'm sure if you really strain your little mind you'll be able to figure it out too.

4. I have read the report on the website, but in my opinion, even if the number ARE inaccurate, even the most conservative (no pun intended) casualty estimates would be too high to justify, given the highly questionable motives and reasons given for entering the war.


That is an entirely different discussion and a very feeble (if not transparent) attempt to redirect our discussion. It tells me, however, that you are rather unsure of your "facts".

So how many innocents do you think is acceptable collateral damage? I'd be very interested to see you explain this to the families of the dead.

I can't decide who is more annoying, petty and cliche, the trolls or the people constantly spamming about trolling. Maybe if everyone just took it easy on this constant "trollin on the mind" attitude, it wouldn't even be a problem.

If everyone would just see the light and agree with you the whole world would be pretty rainbows and pink ponies too.

... where do you get this puerile drivel?

 

[Gunny]

Now if only Americans were as concerned with the Iraqi civilians getting slaughtered by the truckload...

Americans ARE concerned. That's why they're involved in the war against Islamic extremists who wage a war against civilians.

Get your facts straight. There's a difference between targetting civilians and civilians be killed accidentally. That you wish to purposefully confuse that fact does you no service.

Those "truckloads" of Iraqis were dying before we got there, and they'll be dying after we leave.

 

[Helios]

Americans ARE concerned. That's why they're involved in the war against Islamic extremists who wage a war against civilians.

Get your facts straight. There's a difference between targetting civilians and civilians be killed accidentally. That you wish to purposefully confuse that fact does you no service.

Those "truckloads" of Iraqis were dying before we got there, and they'll be dying after we leave.

Do we really need the extra blood on our hands here? I don't think accidental murder with this "break-eggs-to-make-omelet" attitude is any better than purposeful murder. It doesn't make a damn difference to the killing and maiming that has taken place amongst the innocent civilian population. Let me put it to you this way, if the positions were reversed, and a close family member of yours was killed "accidentally," would your position be different?

These people aren't just a statistic man, you can't write them off as collateral d. Besides, if we cant influence these "truckloads" of deaths, then WHY the FUCK are we THERE??? I always get back to this with the right wingers, and most of the lefties too. That's the fall back position: "It's not our fault their dying, see? They were dying before we came and will keep dying blah blah blah." Save it man, if we aren't making a difference why are sacrificing our economy, our taxpayers and our freedoms on the alter?

 

[CSM]

... where do you get this puerile drivel?

Same place you get yours....

You presented no facts, merely opinions... and you are indeed entitled to an opinion.

It isn't worth shit.

 

[CSM]

Do we really need the extra blood on our hands here? I don't think accidental murder with this "break-eggs-to-make-omelet" attitude is any better than purposeful murder. It doesn't make a damn difference to the killing and maiming that has taken place amongst the innocent civilian population. Let me put it to you this way, if the positions were reversed, and a close family member of yours was killed "accidentally," would your position be different?

These people aren't just a statistic man, you can't write them off as collateral d. Besides, if we cant influence these "truckloads" of deaths, then WHY the FUCK are we THERE??? I always get back to this with the right wingers, and most of the lefties too. That's the fall back position: "It's not our fault their dying, see? They were dying before we came and will keep dying blah blah blah." Save it man, if we aren't making a difference why are sacrificing our economy, our taxpayers and our freedoms on the alter?

We are there because it is better that THEY do the dying than US citizens. I know you do not agree with that and would prefer to see all of urban America in flames rather than kill one innocent foreign national.