6,558 terrorists & insurgents killed in Iraq and Afghanistan since January 1, 2006

[Redballjets88]

if we went by number of people killed then the south would have won the civil war

[matt19]

Originally posted by Redballjets88
if we went by number of people killed then the south would have won the civil war

Wow thats a very liberal response of you.

[Redballjets88]

yeah see im not an idiotic neocon like people portray me

[matt19]

Sometimes you really support their views.

[Redballjets88]

the times in which i "support" their views are in threads about very controversial topics, such as palestians vs israelis.

[matt19]

I guess.

[Redballjets88]

lets see
im against the war in iraq, its pointless for us to have gone there in the first place.

im for stem cell research

i vote independent

bush is an idiot

so i dont see why im seen in such a shitty light.

[matt19]

Ok calm down there chief.

[Redballjets88]

im calm big guy no worries

[Nickdfresh]

Originally posted by Sgt Schultz
U.S. Forces continue to decimate enemy in Iraq







DoD Press Briefing with Lt. Gen. Odierno from the Pentagon

They do? But the funny thing is "sgt" is that the insurgents just keep operating with virtual impunity, and have inflicted far more casualties on BOTH US and "Iraqi" forces and allied militias....

So, what is the criteria for success here?

[Nickdfresh]

Originally posted by Redballjets88
if we went by number of people killed then the south would have won the civil war

And if "body count" is an indicator of victory, then we won Vietnam!

Log off and read more!

[Sgt Schultz]

Originally posted by Nickdfresh
And if "body count" is an indicator of victory, then we won Vietnam!

Log off and read more!

OK, so according to you a "body count" is no longer relevant now that we are discussing enemy body counts vs U.S. body counts.

[Petroleum Nasby]

Originally posted by Redballjets88
if we went by number of people killed then the south would have won the civil war

Ah beleeve yer figgerun is flawed suh. As all good and true Demikrats knows we uns alwis counts thu sahvillyans in any proper bodee countin a war (at leest when it benifuts us pulitikally). When the tallyatin' is done you shall see that the South lost many more peeple to Linkun's war than the north.

Then as now we must see thru this transparint atemt by a corupt Reepublikan to subjigate a free luving people fer hiz own par.

[DEMON CUNT]

Originally posted by Sgt Schultz
OK, so according to you a "body count" is no longer relevant now that we are discussing enemy body counts vs U.S. body counts.

Hey "sgt", what do you wish to accomplish with this thread?

[Nickdfresh]

Originally posted by Sgt Schultz
OK, so according to you a "body count" is no longer relevant now that we are discussing enemy body counts vs U.S. body counts.

What is relevant is that you're NOT discussion IRAQI "bodycounts."

...As in deaths of Iraqi police, soldiers, militia forces, and innocent civilians murdered by death squads, bombings, or by collateral damage, in which case the "Coalition" would actually have MORE casualties than the Sunni insurgents...

Secondly, what's the correlation between "securing Iraq" (the supposed nebulous and diffuse criteria for victory) and deaths of Iraqi insurgents (which may or may not be politically exaggerated as was the case in Vietnam)?

Apparently, there is NO correlation, since Iraq is a spire flowing increasingly towards anarchy and civil war...

And 85 US troops have died in June of this year. In June 2006, it was 63. In June of 2005, it was 85 (for the total month, we're not done with this one yet). In June of 2004, it was 50! And in June of 2003, we lost 36 service members...

Source.

So by your own criteria, the US is losing in Iraq...