10,000 troops kill 22 insurgents

:lol:

 

geez it takes 10,000 men to kill 22 men
lets hope america doesn't have to fight a war
no - actually its ok they can always round up a few idiots for their campaigns against civillisation, one thing you can always count on is losses, the beautiful thing is joe public doesn't care, afterall they aren't going ? are they?

 

:lol:

 

It is a little easier to kill people at random.
Better report:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/worldlatest/story/0,,-6719091,00.html

 

So you are saying we should target random civilians instead of the actual enemy, so we can get the death tolls up? What the hell kind of logic is that.

 

:lol:

 

That's 22 less insurgents and 75 less civilians, many of whom were leaving church when they were bombed.

Of course the U.S. troops could've killed more if they simply just detonated a bomb near a church.


Anybody who can joke about this is a sick bastard.

 

HTH this is exactly what I meant.
If they were actually after 22 individuals and they knew who they were and maybe they actually were in one place. Heck forget that if they were actually in a ''conventional'' type of war and ''battle lines'' were drawn out - the mission was to kill as many people as possible.
Yes your premise would be correct and i'd agree with you.
I do understand what you are driving at but it is just a stupid knee jerk reaction.
Detonating a bomb where a large group of people are situated is obviously going to kill more people in one swoop.

In any case the figure is higher than 22 now - this endeavour is ongoing.

Lets see what the overall picture is in say a few weeks.
See if anything of substance has been achieved - apart from killing people.

Unfortunatly HGH does not always think things through - he would rather attempt to discredit something over having any logic or sense of taste and decency. All he has done is see a story in the news and his mind as blanked out a large portion of reality. He will not be within this post posting about how the overall operation has gone - say in a months time.
He will have moved on to something else like a baby with a attention deficit disorder.

 

:lol:

 

:lol:

 

Is there such a thing as a conventional war? Remember how the US revolutionaries won their independence, by being nothing more than terrorists and fighting from behind trees and in homes?

We chose this war, our experts should have seen this coming. The peace protesters in Washington, before it began knew this is the way it would play out, why didn't the Administration?

 

:lol:

 

Yes
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conventional_warfare
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unconventional_warfare

I think the revolutionary war was a mixture of conventional and guerilla
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guerrilla_warfare

Just like in Iraq/Afghanistan maybe more towards the latter..

HGH you do not wish to appreciate the complexity of that situation - you have skipped through a article and come to some facile conclusion.

Like i said I'd agree with you if what you are saying if you took away a multitude of other considerations.

You will have to ask the particular person who said you were making a joke - why they said that.

 

If we espouse only conventional warfare, but we only allow a select few to arm themselves with nuclear arms, how conventional would that be? Wouldn't that be like stacking the deck in a game of poker?

And if you follow that conventional warfare frame of mind, then we should not be involved in any clandestine movements to take the upper hand. Can the US and Western powers say with a clear conscience that they haven't dropped their "red coats", stopped "marching in lock step" to find an advantage? I think Guantanemo and the Patriot Acts are some of the most underhanded unconventional steps taken in this conflict so far.

 

....

Sounds a bit sarcastic to me. You seem to be comparing the 22 dead terrorists with the 75 dead civilians, saying that the coalition forces are hardly doing their job.


Yet why aren't you criticizing the terrorist who bombed the churchgoers? You criticize the troops who are trying to make Iraq safer yet you seem to be applauding the bomber because he killed more civilians than the troops killed insurgents? What the hell? ()


But like Matthew said, you probably have not thought things through.

 

I see more wrong with the estimated number of casualities at the beginning of this war. Where we used million dollar missiles and only killed 3, questions should have been asked then and continually ask up to the present.

I still believe the John Hopkins estimates of casualties over what we've been fed by the administration. Now the news media is filled with the handicapped boys that were rescued recently, but what about all of them that were bombed into oblivion in the first days of the war?

 

What the hell do you expect in a war? Bombs made of flowers that tickle people?

 

[Well thanks for accepting there is such a thing as conventional warfare.]
Erm we are not talking about this - we are talking about a particular military operation that HGH has decided to make some idiotic point about based on scarce details - not taking into account common sense.

The NPT was signed by states who said [in a nutshell] we will not persue nuclear weapons - a select group can have them .

wave owls not flags imho don't let gardener drift us onto a completly different subject.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Arrowhead_Ripper

 

:lol: