Surge Succeeds

McGentrix wrote:

maporsche wrote:

It sure looks like the war/occupation has killed more Iraqis in 4-5 years than Saddam did in 25.

Freedom has it's price right?

Oh, and the really good news is that we're not done yet. [/sarcasm]

You are truly clueless, huh?

No.

0 Replies

That McWhitey is just the master of the stunning retort, no?

0 Replies

McG: You are truly clueless, huh?

ROFLMAO - Looks who's talking about "clueless."

0 Replies

McGentrix wrote:

maporsche wrote:

It sure looks like the war/occupation has killed more Iraqis in 4-5 years than Saddam did in 25.

Freedom has it's price right?

Oh, and the really good news is that we're not done yet. [/sarcasm]

You are truly clueless, huh?

Perfect example of why you are a troll, McG.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

Cycloptichorn wrote:

McGentrix wrote:
maporsche wrote:

It sure looks like the war/occupation has killed more Iraqis in 4-5 years than Saddam did in 25.

Freedom has it's price right?

Oh, and the really good news is that we're not done yet. [/sarcasm]

You are truly clueless, huh?

Perfect example of why you are a troll, McG.

Cycloptichorn

Shouldn't you be badgering maporsche for links to the dumb assed statement he made?

Oh, wait, nevermind. He is a liberal and you only ask for those things from non-liberals. How silly of me to forget your hypocrisy.

0 Replies

McGentrix wrote:

Cycloptichorn wrote:
McGentrix wrote:
maporsche wrote:

It sure looks like the war/occupation has killed more Iraqis in 4-5 years than Saddam did in 25.

Freedom has it's price right?

Oh, and the really good news is that we're not done yet. [/sarcasm]

You are truly clueless, huh?

Perfect example of why you are a troll, McG.

Cycloptichorn

Shouldn't you be badgering maporsche for links to the dumb assed statement he made?

Oh, wait, nevermind. He is a liberal and you only ask for those things from non-liberals. How silly of me to forget your hypocrisy.

I though I gave several links.....

0 Replies

McGentrix wrote:

Cycloptichorn wrote:
McGentrix wrote:
maporsche wrote:

It sure looks like the war/occupation has killed more Iraqis in 4-5 years than Saddam did in 25.

Freedom has it's price right?

Oh, and the really good news is that we're not done yet. [/sarcasm]

You are truly clueless, huh?

Perfect example of why you are a troll, McG.

Cycloptichorn

Shouldn't you be badgering maporsche for links to the dumb assed statement he made?

Oh, wait, nevermind. He is a liberal and you only ask for those things from non-liberals. How silly of me to forget your hypocrisy.

Well, if you had actually bothered to read that thread, you would see the MaPorsche was commenting on not only the links he/she had made, but also the ones Set and I were discussing earlier. I think there was plenty of evidence already presented.

If asked to provide information or evidence of an opinion, one should be willing to do so. If you had asked Maporsche to provide links or evidence, you would have been right to do so. Instead, you made an assh*lish comment as usual.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

It's ok Cyc. I know I have my chorus of puppy dogs following me around and I am ok with that now. I know you will never call out your fellow dipshit liberals on anything so someone else must do so. I have faith that you and setanta will continue following me around adding nothing to any thread I post in but your usual flung feces.

It's too bad you are too chicken **** to apply the same standards to like minded denizens on A2K though. Maybe they would learn something other then knowing they will be safe from any sort of criticism.

0 Replies

McGentrix wrote:

It's ok Cyc. I know I have my chorus of puppy dogs following me around and I am ok with that now. I know you will never call out your fellow dipshit liberals on anything so someone else must do so. I have faith that you and setanta will continue following me around adding nothing to any thread I post in but your usual flung feces.

It's too bad you are too chicken **** to apply the same standards to like minded denizens on A2K though. Maybe they would learn something other then knowing they will be safe from any sort of criticism.

Following you around?

A careful review of the last several pages will reveal that we were having a perfectly nice conversation before you showed up and dropped a turd in the middle of it. And you accuse us of following you around?

You may want to examine the beam in thy own eye, McG. You could have posted alternative figures; you could have disputed the conclusions we were discussing; you could have offered an alternative viewpoint or critique of our methods or conclusions. Instead, you insulted. A pointless insult intended to do exactly what has happened: derail the conversation.

You are nothing but a troll, or, you act so much like one on a regular basis, that there is no identifiable difference.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

I agree with what Cyco said above this post.

0 Replies

The trolls of A2K are the far left who have taken over the site.

Maybe Craven finally got his nuke....

0 Replies

Cycloptichorn wrote:

McGentrix wrote:
It's ok Cyc. I know I have my chorus of puppy dogs following me around and I am ok with that now. I know you will never call out your fellow dipshit liberals on anything so someone else must do so. I have faith that you and setanta will continue following me around adding nothing to any thread I post in but your usual flung feces.

It's too bad you are too chicken **** to apply the same standards to like minded denizens on A2K though. Maybe they would learn something other then knowing they will be safe from any sort of criticism.

Following you around?

A careful review of the last several pages will reveal that we were having a perfectly nice conversation before you showed up and dropped a turd in the middle of it. And you accuse us of following you around?

You may want to examine the beam in thy own eye, McG. You could have posted alternative figures; you could have disputed the conclusions we were discussing; you could have offered an alternative viewpoint or critique of our methods or conclusions. Instead, you insulted. A pointless insult intended to do exactly what has happened: derail the conversation.

You are nothing but a troll, or, you act so much like one on a regular basis, that there is no identifiable difference.

Cycloptichorn

Yes, following me around... like a sad puppy.

I addressed a post to maporsche. You, once again, felt it your duty to comment on it, like it's your purpose in life. You could have opted to ignore it, but you didn't. Instead, you continue posting the same tired, childish drivel. It must really pain you to read 99% of C.I.'s posts if you can't bear reading posts by trolls. Especially with his high count and number of posts that, by your definition, are trollish.

Your hypocrisy and boorish behavior is nothing to me. But it does provide entertainment to get me through the day, so I guess I can thank you for that at least.

0 Replies

Taking a line from the Mountie's post, i posed a question about the relative safety of Iraqi civilians now, after the invasion, as compared to under the 25 years of Hussein's Ba'athist regime. Both MP and Cyclo responded conversationally, and MP provided links to the methodology applied to estimating civilian casualties. I then provided a link to "Iraqi Body Count," which applies a conservative standard and by which the evidence is that Iraqis are in as much danger of their lives, and perhaps more, than was the case in the 25 years of Hussein's regime.

McWhitey, however, just shows up to make a snotty remark--not an on-topic remark, not a remark about the putative success of the so-called surge, just a snotty remark to MP, not a single link to any evidence of a divergent point of view, just a snotty remark to MP, not even a plausible argument that the quoted and linked information might not mean what it appears to mean to those in the conversation, just a snotty remark to MP.

No surprises here.

0 Replies

pw wrote :

Quote:

History has taught us over and over that if we fail to finish the job, that it causes even larger problems in the future.

seems to me that vietnam should have shown the U.S. that it was better to quit than fight to the bitter end .

i posted a while ago about splendid relations between U.S. and vietnam - those were president bush' words btw . the president visited vietnam and praised the newly forged trade relations with vietnam etc etc .
just think of all the blood that could have been saved if wiser council would have been listened to earlier - in both vietnam and iraq war !

yes , i do think history has lessons to teach the world - but we all better listen to those lessons that provided a successful outcome .
hbg

0 Replies

McG: Your hypocrisy and boorish behavior is nothing to me. But it does provide entertainment to get me through the day, so I guess I can thank you for that at least.

"Boorish behavior..." is probably a new a2k oxymoron by one of the most boorish of posters.

0 Replies

New A2K oxymoron. "Cicerone Imposter - HDTV Expert".

0 Replies

This article at the Washington Post, dated October, 2004 (which is to say, a little over a year and a half after the invasion) tells of a report by public health officials in a door-to-door survey in Iraq, and published in the English medical Journal, The Lancet. According to that report, something on the order of 100,000 Iraqis would have died due to causes directly related to the invasion, largely from aerial bombing by coalition forces (and they stress that they were making no allegations of misconduct). Their claim is that the pre-war average of violent deaths ran at about 5%, but that the post-invasion rate was 7.9%.

0 Replies

Two years later, this Washington Post article in October, 2006 says that the civilian death toll in Iraq is four times higher than it was before the invasion, and puts the total casualty figure at 655,000.

Quote:

A team of American and Iraqi epidemiologists estimates that 655,000 more people have died in Iraq since coalition forces arrived in March 2003 than would have died if the invasion had not occurred.

The estimate, produced by interviewing residents during a random sampling of households throughout the country, is far higher than ones produced by other groups, including Iraq's government.

It is more than 20 times the estimate of 30,000 civilian deaths that President Bush gave in a speech in December. It is more than 10 times the estimate of roughly 50,000 civilian deaths made by the British-based Iraq Body Count research group.

The surveyors said they found a steady increase in mortality since the invasion, with a steeper rise in the last year that appears to reflect a worsening of violence as reported by the U.S. military, the news media and civilian groups. In the year ending in June, the team calculated Iraq's mortality rate to be roughly four times what it was the year before the war.

0 Replies

This article at the Online Journal looks at six separate estimates of civilian casualties in Iraq.

This is the author's conclusion:

Quote:

Violence against civilians by Iraqi government and resistance forces has increased since most of these surveys were conducted. The U.S. air war has also intensified, especially during assaults on Fallujah and other towns in Anbar and Salahuddin provinces, and since the last few months of 2005. The U.S. Air Force acknowledged conducting about 290 air strikes in November and December 2005, compared with a total of 200 in the eight months between January and August.

More U.S. soldiers have died in Iraq during the period since the Lancet report was conducted in September 2004 than in the period it covered, and there is every reason to think that the same must be true of civilians. If, like the Lancet report, we are speaking of all civilian deaths that have resulted from the war, it is, therefore, now accurate to speak in terms of hundreds of thousands rather than tens of thousands. The results of the other five surveys, taken each in their own context and collectively, are entirely consistent with this conclusion.

0 Replies

Many conservatives believe collateral damage is a necessary component of winning the war on terrorism - even when it involves killing the very people we are trying to help. This administration doesn't do civilian body counts; it's not important. They also do not allow pictures of our soldiers coming back in caskets with flags draped over them.

0 Replies

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know