http://www.iraqbodycount.net/

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4336929.stm

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/ar ... Oct28.html

When compared to other wars, those numbers are small. Of course you can't compare different eras of history since the weaponry and tactics of fighting are different. But nevertheless.

I might be getting the wrong signal but are you trying to say American pilots/soldiers,etc shoot at Civilians on purpose???

It seems people are trying to "suprise" me with news of death tolls and the like, but really they match to any other war in history...especially one that's longer than a year and involves an insurgency.

I'm not sure if your addressing me or not, but i'll try and address your post.

I agree. Compared to other wars those numbers are extremly small.

[quote:99bb1]I might be getting the wrong signal but are you trying to say American pilots/soldiers,etc shoot at Civilians on purpose???
[/quote:99bb1]

Not at all. I can sympathize with the troops over there. To tell you the truth, i'd much rather shoot a civilian and be safe than hesitate and be dead. When those guys hear and see that shit every day, I don't blame them for what goes on over there. I'd be the same way.

[quote:99bb1]
It seems people are trying to "suprise" me with news of death tolls and the like, but really they match to any other war in history...especially one that's longer than a year and involves an insurgency.[/quote:99bb1]
It's a different day and age. Back in the good ol days war was different. I don't know how or why, but today any casualties seem unappropriate. If 10,000 troops die in Iraq, do you think that will be tolerated? I don't. I think it's pushing it right now with 1,500 or around there.

You need to mix in all the circumstances involved in that unique war not what year it is when saying what's a right death toll and what isn't.

When you look at how most of these American soldiers are killed, it's usually in a vulnerable vehicle catching shrapnel or one getting totally blown to bits. A mortar round lobbed into a barracks,etc. A lot of people can usually fit in certain vehicles/barracks, so that's a lot of bodies. A war involving an insurgency is much different than any convential war.

By the way, how many of the civilians were killed by insurgents?

This wasn’t directed towards me but I still feel the need to respond. Your engagement policies are reckless that is why there are so many friendly fire instances. IMO The US militarily would benefit greatly with some self reflection over this policy.

I can't get much from that, but as far as I know it's the same policies as any other country following the Geneva convention. You can go ahead and post as many stories of soldiers going nuts, friendly fire, etc but that happens in every war.

If you want to talk about reckless engagement policy, how about the Soviets in the afghan war?

You have some nice points though HaVoc.

the US has the best engagement policy-the same as other nations. we tried to use the Israeli tactics, but they didnt work. War is war

Fuck I could give a shit anymore.. Why argue ? Proof could come in tommrow (not that it hasn't already), That the war was not over WMDs etc etc etc. It could show that infact it was wrong, every concept behind it was completely wrong yadda yadda yadda, and most of you would still indeed support the war. Nothing nayone could show you, or say will sway your minds. To you........

"we are the enemy". annoy:

Ahh… Well I can’t find the article but it was in Calgary Herald a few years ago when the war started. Now don’t quote me on this because I don’t have the article to confirm it, however it was comparing the British engagement policy with the American one and it mention that the British used a five step system to confirm hostile targets while the US used a two step system. My point is the US policy is not the same as other countries in fact it is one of the most aggressive engagement policies of any military.

Our wars in history were necessary.

And im sure there must be some soldiers who shoot civilians on purpose...fuck it is a serial killers dream. But over 90% don't.

to not support the war is supporting terrorism (at least now, maybe not before the elections)--take note from the Brittish Antiwar leader who resigned on this principle

This is something that drives me INSANE.

Do those who believe this really think the world is black and white? Good against evil? God against the Devil?

I don't support the war, I guess I support terrorism then. Would you like to add a little graphic in your sig stating that ninty is a terrorist? I'll make it for you.

pm a pic, ill make one for him : )

oOo:

Imo majority of the wars throughout history were unnecessary, but there's people in certain positions that have the power to make and keep them necessary. One person's necessary is anothers unnecessary.

I never said this war was necessary or not, I'm just defending the positive work the US soldiers have done in spite of doing it for what seems like nothing to certain people.

I wouldn't of even replied to that.

^^

The new Ponte! dance: