10,000 troops kill 22 insurgents

:lol:

 

The number of dead insurgents was more than 22 hours after the initial post. Obviously, the numbers will continue to escalate as this particular mission wages on.

Now, like I said before, the number could have been higher had the troops killed randomly, like the church bomber. The only point in posting these two news pieces together was to compare and contrast, either by saying that the troops are failing because 10,000 can't kill as many terrorists as one terrorist can kill civilians; that the troops are failing because terrorists are still killing civilians; or that the troops are incapable of doing their job because they didn't kill as many terrorists in a single battle that a terrorist killed civilians with a single bomb. To criticize the troops based on these factors is just wrong; if it weren't for American soldiers you wouldn't be alive.

Matthew pointed out that as this particular offensive escalates more terrorists will be killed, but for some reason you don't like that? But you like the fact that a terrorist killed 75 churchgoers? If not to let the world know of your undying love for terrorists than what the hell was the point of posting this article in America Attacks?

 

:lol:

 

Why don't you get over the homophobia and explain what's the point. Its easier to kill civilians than to hunt down insurgents, therefore what?

 

:lol:

 

There is such a thing as a conventional war. There is also unconventional war and there is also terrorism. The US revolutionaries did not win their independance by using terrorism. Unconventional warfare and guerrilla warfare are one in the same, and neither are terrorism.

 

oh my god i've suddenly realised the warmongers are so right. i think they should immediately join up and finally teach these terrorists a good lesson.

 

I said to a certain degree - not completely.
Both were about the same subject just a slightly differing point - I accept that.
I also added the same article here and highlighted the same points as you had over in that other thread.
If it was a wildly differing point then I think you would have got more of a response.
The same points would come up in that thread as is in here.
Plus all you would say is i'm ''Blurring and destracting'' or ''lieng''.
I was sort of taking a piece of your advice and staying away -

I did end up responding to your other threads point:

If the ''senior militant commanders'' had fled BEFORE the troops had even come close to starting the mission - then obviously surrounding the area [a pretty much impossible job in the first place] would not contain the ''senior militant commanders'' in the area - they would be gone anyway.
Did you not think of that ?.


You bitch on at me when I respond and bitch on even more when I don't.
Wow this is a real love hate relationship :H .

Where have I lied denied distracted ?.
I've pretty much said that if in a few weeks nothing of substance occurs then i'd be agreeing with your point about the inefectualness..you just can't accept I may agree with you can you -

Eh ?. I'm not gay. where on earth have I eluded to anything to suggest otherwise ?.

I think the only thing you have shown here is your homophobia - shame on you.

 

:lol:

 

Another bad weekend in Iraq.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070708/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraq

.

 

If the OP is correct, than Bush is right in saying that we need more troops

LOL

 

Just how many troops following the ratio do we need to win this war?

 

How many million dollar bombs do we have to set off to wn a conflict...at some point even non profit based companies have to ask about the expenses...why not the western world/US?

 

We should always ask about the expenses.


and the cost in lives.

Who in thier right mind, bombs a house of worship ?

 

I sort of remember Bush's administration with shooting wounded hostages in a mosque. Probably the same mentality that shot captive dogs during Katrina, held at the local school for rescue. Big tough fellows aren't they? Aren't we told they are "HEROS"? Bullshit!

 

it doesn't matter

the people being killed on the american side are expendable

the resistance and civillian populace are there to be massacred.

the iraqi's didn't understand the consequences of an invasion, they didn't fight hard enough to keep an invader out. look at what happened to the american indian or any other indiginous people fighting to keep an invader from taking the natural resources of their country. no doubt the other coutries of the world have been watching events closely

 

He that would make his own liberty secure must guard even his enemy from oppression; for if he violates this duty he establishes a precedent that will reach to himself.
Thomas Paine

 

Assuming there's 8,000 insurgents (going by some of the estimates) and with the current rate of success being 10,000 troops to kill 22 Iraqi insurgents, than the solution to the problem is to send 3,636,364 more US troops into Iraq.

With the new $20,000 minimum sign up bonus to go over in the new Quick Shipper program, the US government would need to spend $72,727,280,000 (72.7 BILLION) for this new troop signup. And that's not even counting new equipment, training, food, etc...

 

72.7 BILLION, is it worth it to you? Especially if your kid goes to fight and doesn't come home. I am sure the military contractors think so, but why shouldn't they be fighting this war. Bet their stock would drop....if we didn't send our children to fight for their profits.