Body count: 2 Iraqi invasions ....
Inver
"Karen Gordon" <ar...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA> wrote in message
news:bfsemg$ic7$1...@freenet9.carleton.ca...
> U.S. Casualties in 1991 'Desert Storm' attack on Iraq:
>
> Combat deaths: 148
> Non-combat deaths: 145 ('friendly fire' & other incidents)
> Wounded in action: 467
> __________________________________________________
>
> 2003 Before May 1/03 After May 1/03
> ('hostilities ended')
>
> AMERICAN combat deaths: 158 44
> Non-combat deaths: 79 57
>
> BRITISH combat deaths: 16 6
> Non-combat deaths: 29 4
>
> CANADIAN military deaths: 1
> " civilian deaths: 1
>
> IRAQI military deaths: 2,320 30
> " taken prisoner: 7,300 674
>
> IRAQI civilian deaths: 6,073-7,782
> " wounded: 5,103
> __________________________________________________________________________
>
> (K): Already the death toll for Americans exceeds their death toll of
> their 'desert storm' assault, and the Americans are STILL being hunted
down
> and killed on a daily basis in Iraq.
> Seems the 'liberators' are not as well liked as Bush would have us
believe.
>
> And just look at the toll for the civilians they were supposed to be
> liberating. Over 300% more civilians killed than military. This was not
> a 'war'. This was a slaughter.
>
> --
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> Don't blame me, I didn't vote for that son of a Bush!
>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Petzl
wrote:
[Snipped her schadenfreude]
>(K): Already the death toll for Americans exceeds their death toll of
>their 'desert storm' assault, and the Americans are STILL being hunted down
>and killed on a daily basis in Iraq.
>Seems the 'liberators' are not as well liked as Bush would have us believe.
>
more American casualties happened last year (without war) than during
the conflict with Iraq
Petzl
--
LET'S LOOK OUT FOR AUSTRALIA
http://www.nationalsecurity.gov.au/
Protecting our way of life from terrorist threat
The State of Alberta
"Karen Gordon" <ar...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA> wrote in message
news:bfsemg$ic7$1...@freenet9.carleton.ca...
> U.S. Casualties in 1991 'Desert Storm' attack on Iraq:
>
> Combat deaths: 148
> Non-combat deaths: 145 ('friendly fire' & other incidents)
> Wounded in action: 467
> __________________________________________________
>
> 2003 Before May 1/03 After May 1/03
> ('hostilities ended')
>
> AMERICAN combat deaths: 158 44
> Non-combat deaths: 79 57
>
> BRITISH combat deaths: 16 6
> Non-combat deaths: 29 4
>
> CANADIAN military deaths: 1
> " civilian deaths: 1
>
> IRAQI military deaths: 2,320 30
> " taken prisoner: 7,300 674
>
> IRAQI civilian deaths: 6,073-7,782
> " wounded: 5,103
> __________________________________________________________________________
>
> their 'desert storm' assault, and the Americans are STILL being hunted
down
> and killed on a daily basis in Iraq.
> Seems the 'liberators' are not as well liked as Bush would have us
believe.
We never hear about how many Iraqis are being killed by Iraqis each day.
One thing is certain: it is less than how many were being killed by Saddam's
regime had we done nothing.
Even then you'd find something to complain about. You're an amateur
complainer, nothing more.
> And just look at the toll for the civilians they were supposed to be
> liberating. Over 300% more civilians killed than military. This was not
> a 'war'. This was a slaughter.
Nonsense. It was a testament to the discipline of the Coalition forces and
their dedication to keep civilian casualties down. That is a remarkably
small number given the scale of the operation. Compare that to the bombing
of German cities in WWII. Normally civilian casualties are 10x greater than
military casualties, if not much more.
The Iraqi people will soon thank the Coalition for removing Saddam and
allowing them to breathe free, and spit on the UN for doing nothing.
Valentine Michael Smith
>Source??
Ignoreing even that the ffigures are likely inflated you may also want
to ask her why she omitted Saddam's body count - possibly over a
million even if you don't include the external wars.
There are single graves in Iraq with more dead than this total -
people murdered *intentionally* by Saddam.
She also seems to have missed Saddam war total of civilians in his war
with Iraq - a couple of orders of magnitude more than this total.
Whatever the right or wrong of the war it is clear the US in their
more recent wars have done an amazing job of minimizing civilian
causalities - a fact that a person so warped hatred like Karen will
never understand.
........
N' keep it in yer mind and not fergit
That it is not he or she or them or it
That you belong to.
Bob Dylan
...........
www.libertarian.on.ca
..................
fasgnadh
"Petzl" <petzl...@SpAmCoP.NeT> wrote in message
news:okj3ivc8asvhg2tuu...@4ax.com...
> On 25 Jul 2003 23:32:32 GMT, ar...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Karen Gordon)
> wrote:
> [Snipped her schadenfreude]
No, you snipped the FACTS, because, like Bush, you deal in lies.
There is no gloating about the quagmire Bush has sent American troops
into, just anger, because it is UNECESSARY death on top of
the 30,000 victims already;
> > U.S. Casualties in 1991 'Desert Storm' attack on Iraq:
> >
> > Combat deaths: 148
> > Non-combat deaths: 145 ('friendly fire' & other incidents)
> > Wounded in action: 467
> > __________________________________________________
> >
> > 2003 Before May 1/03 After May 1/03
> > ('hostilities ended')
> >
> > AMERICAN combat deaths: 158 44
> > Non-combat deaths: 79 57
> >
> > BRITISH combat deaths: 16 6
> > Non-combat deaths: 29 4
> >
> > CANADIAN military deaths: 1
> > " civilian deaths: 1
> >
> > IRAQI military deaths: 2,320 30
> > " taken prisoner: 7,300 674
> >
> > IRAQI civilian deaths: 6,073-7,782
> > " wounded: 5,103
> >
__________________________________________________________________________
> >
> > (K): Already the death toll for Americans exceeds their death toll of
> > their 'desert storm' assault, and the Americans are STILL being hunted
down
> > and killed on a daily basis in Iraq.
> > Seems the 'liberators' are not as well liked as Bush would have us
believe.
Since Husseins sons were killed, touted by the Invaders as a body
blow to the Baathists, the resistance continued, with five more USSA
soldiers killed.
It should be clear now that the resistance is NOT pro-Saddam, but
anti-occupation and pillage.
The demonstrations, especially those by Saddams past-victims
and eternal enemies, the Shiites, do not shout, "Bring back Saddam"
but "USA OUT" .
> > And just look at the toll for the civilians they were supposed to be
> > liberating. Over 300% more civilians killed than military. This was
not
> > a 'war'. This was a slaughter.
That is correct, the safest place to be was in the military.
Especially on the deck of a USSA warship launching cruise missiles
or a warplane at 30,000 feet.
Modern war has put civilians on the front lines,
and the armed forces pushing buttons in bunkers.
Perhaps that is why the USSA has to manufacture 'heroes'
like Jessica Lynch, turning cock-ups into crowing;
___________________
From: Murchadh (murc...@shaw.ca)
Subject: Jessica Lynch - US news manipulation exposed.
Newsgroups: soc.culture.scottish
Date: 2003-05-22 20:52:05 PST
It looks as though we were conned by the US Military. The BBC has
caused a storm with its documentary of the Jessica Lynch affair,
interviewing the doctors and others involved on the Iraqi side who
treated her and concluding that the whole event was stage-managed.
The evidence of the Iraqi doctors in particular is convincing. My
personal take is that the BBC story is correct, especially as I
watched the whole affair as it developed and began to wonder why the
girl was being so carefully shielded from the media.
Every army does its best to create heroes to keep the troops and the
homefront happy and supportive of a war, and Jessica was a great icon
for the US, but we never even saw her face when she was being moved.
As soon as it was hinted that she had been shot in several places and
might even have fought off the Iraqis with a machine gun, I knew we
were being lied to, but I thought it was only an attempt to improve on
what seemed like a pretty horrifying story already, with our wounded
heroine certainly being slapped around and perhaps even raped by the
disgusting Iraqi secret police.
The problem the Pentagon probably did not appreciate is that the Iraqi
professional middle class are not "wild-eyed desert rag heads" to
paraphrase the national prejudice, but certainly in the case of the
doctors, very possibly graduates of London hospitals like Guys or John
Hopkins or suchlike in the States. Wherever they trained, they will be
westernized, 21st century physicians of the same quality as their
counterparts in the UK and US.
If they read, and they must have, the Pentagon version of what
happened to Jessica Lynch, they would have known immediately that it
was not true and I have no doubt they must have welcomed the BBC's
arrival so that they could put the record straight, protect their own
honour as competent Iraqi physicians and dispute strongly any
criticism of their professionalism.
The Pentagon has strenuously denied the BBC story, describing it as
"void of all facts and absolutely ridiculous". I've pasted their reply
below this story which broke the news:
I wonder now if this is linked in any way to General Franks' decision
to leave the Army.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----
Saving Private Lynch story 'flawed'
By John Kampfner - BBC.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----
Private Jessica Lynch became an icon of the war, and the story of her
capture by the Iraqis and her rescue by US special forces became one
of the great patriotic moments of the conflict.
But her story is one of the most stunning pieces of news management
ever conceived.
Private Lynch, a 19-year-old army clerk from Palestine, West Virginia,
was captured when her company took a wrong turning just outside
Nasiriya and was ambushed.
Nine of her comrades were killed and Private Lynch was taken to the
local hospital, which at the time was swarming with Fedayeen. Eight
days later US special forces stormed the hospital, capturing the
"dramatic" events on a night vision camera.
They were said to have come under fire from inside and outside the
building, but they made it to Lynch and whisked her away by
helicopter.
Reports claimed that she had stab and bullet wounds and that she had
been slapped about on her hospital bed and interrogated.
But Iraqi doctors in Nasiriya say they provided the best treatment
they could for the soldier in the midst of war. She was assigned the
only specialist bed in the hospital and one of only two nurses on the
floor.
"I examined her, I saw she had a broken arm, a broken thigh and a
dislocated ankle," said Dr Harith a-Houssona, who looked after her.
"There was no [sign of] shooting, no bullet inside her body, no stab
wound - only road traffic accident. They want to distort the picture.
I don't know why they think there is some benefit in saying she has a
bullet injury."
Witnesses told us that the special forces knew that the Iraqi military
had fled a day before they swooped on the hospital.
Dr Uday was surprised by the manner of the rescue
"We were surprised. Why do this? There was no military, there were no
soldiers in the hospital," said Dr Anmar Uday, who worked at the
hospital.
"It was like a Hollywood film. They cried 'go, go, go', with guns and
blanks without bullets, blanks and the sound of explosions. They made
a show for the American attack on the hospital - action movies like
Sylvester Stallone or Jackie Chan."
There was one more twist. Two days before the snatch squad arrived,
Harith had arranged to deliver Jessica to the Americans in an
ambulance.
But as the ambulance, with Private Lynch inside, approached a
checkpoint American troops opened fire, forcing it to flee back to the
hospital. The Americans had almost killed their prize catch.
When footage of the rescue was released, General Vincent Brooks, US
spokesman in Doha, said: "Some brave souls put their lives on the line
to make this happen, loyal to a creed that they know that they'll
never leave a fallen comrade."
The American strategy was to ensure the right television footage by
using embedded reporters and images from their own cameras, editing
the film themselves.
The Pentagon had been influenced by Hollywood producers of reality TV
and action movies, notably the man behind Black Hawk Down, Jerry
Bruckheimer.
Bruckheimer advised the Pentagon on the primetime television series
"Profiles from the Front Line", that followed US forces in Afghanistan
in 2001. That approached was taken on and developed on the field of
battle in Iraq.
As for Private Lynch, her status as cult hero is stronger than ever.
Internet auction sites list Jessica Lynch items, from an oil painting
with an opening bid of $200 to a $5 "America Loves Jessica Lynch"
fridge magnet.
But doctors now say she has no recollection of the whole episode and
probably never will.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----
US rejects BBC Lynch report
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----
The Pentagon has hit back at allegations made in a BBC documentary
that the US military stage-managed the rescue in Iraq of American PoW
Jessica Lynch.
Pentagon spokesman Bryan Whitman said any claims that the facts of
Private Lynch's rescue were misrepresented by the US military were
"void of all facts and absolutely ridiculous".
An investigation by the BBC's Correspondent programme said the story
of the rescue was "one of the most stunning pieces of news management
ever conceived".
The 19-year-old army clerk from Palestine, West Virginia, was captured
when her company took a wrong turning just outside Nasiriya and was
ambushed.
Nine of her comrades were killed and Private Lynch was taken to the
local hospital. Eight days later US special forces stormed the
hospital, capturing the "dramatic" events on a night vision camera.
The rescue was extensively reported around the world, with the
pictures of the rescue turning Private Lynch into a cult hero in the
United States.
But our correspondent said the US military knew there were no Iraqi
forces guarding the hospital, and quoted a local doctor saying that
the troops used blank rounds * to "make a show" of the operation.
It also questioned reports that Private Lynch had stab and bullet
wounds, and that she had been slapped about on her hospital bed and
interrogated.
The programme said Iraqi doctors in Nasiriya claimed to have provided
the best treatment they could for the soldier in the midst of war.
But the Pentagon said no blanks * were used, and that all the
procedures used were consistent with normal operations when there is a
threat of encountering hostile forces.
* (My note: A blank round sounds weaker, more like a firework.)
"We don't want to take unnecessary risk. We do make sure that when we
exercise military force we use the right resources, sufficient to get
the job done. It is a decision made by the commander on the ground,"
Mr Whitman told CNN.
He also said that the US military never claimed that the troops came
under fire when they burst into the hospital, but that troops
supporting the mission exchanged fire nearby.
Speculative reports in the media were responsible for some of the
misinformation, not Pentagon statements, he added.
"The Pentagon never released an account of what happened to Lynch
because it didn't have an account. She never told us," Mr Whitman
added.
Doctors now say Jessica Lynch has no recollection of the whole episode
and probably never will.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----
> > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> > Don't blame me, I didn't vote for that son of a Bush!
> >
>
> >(K): Already the death toll for Americans exceeds their death toll of
> >their 'desert storm' assault, and the Americans are STILL being hunted
down
> >and killed on a daily basis in Iraq.
> >Seems the 'liberators' are not as well liked as Bush would have us
believe.
> >
> more American casualties happened last year (without war) than during
> the conflict with Iraq
>
Are you claiming that it's not only the Iraqi's who want
the USSA Imperial regime to fuck off, stop stealing their oil and imposing
their political puppets on a people whose democratic rights
continue to be denied....
..but that the American people feel the same way!? B^D
fasgnadh
"The State of Alberta" <freea...@canadasucks.orb> wrote in message
news:zhlUa.518250$ro6.12...@news2.calgary.shaw.ca...
Much less than the number of Americans killed by Americans each day. B^p
Your point then? Remember, the Iraqi's have no choice about being
born in Iraq, the USSA came halfway round the world to kill tens
of thousands of them, steal their oil, and replace one murderous regime with
another.
(Perhaps the USA death rate is inflated by massacres in schools,
which, like everything else in Iraq, have trouble opening
since the USSA destroyed the infrastructure.
> One thing is certain: it is less than how many were being killed by
Saddam's
> regime had we done nothing.
Bullshit. Nowhere near the 30,000 iraqi's killed by the invaders
in the last six months were killed by Saddam in the previous six month
period.
But do keep on comparing this murderous regime to the previous one! B^p
I'm sure people will come to understand your comparison, especially those
who
are being killed as we speak.
> Even then you'd find something to complain about.
People being killed IS something to complain about you Bush arse licker.
Especially when compared to your pathetic bleating, when your complaint
is that someone posts the truth in Usenet! pffffffft!
> You're an amateur complainer, nothing more.
And you are clearly a professional whiner, although not a very good one.
>
> > And just look at the toll for the civilians they were supposed to be
> > liberating. Over 300% more civilians killed than military. This was
not
> > a 'war'. This was a slaughter.
>
> Nonsense. It was a testament to the discipline of the Coalition forces
and
> their dedication to keep civilian casualties down.
Discipline?
BWAAAAAHAAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAAAAAA
They killed more of their own troops than the Iraqi's did!
They killed more of their British allies than the Iraqi's did!
And when Pte Jessica Ryans convoy fucked up, took a wrong
turn, rolled vehicles and killed their occupants, they manufactured
it into an 'engagement' lied that she had been shot, tortured, whatever..
and will soon make a move about what heroes they were!
Merkins believe their own Hollywood fantasies.
> That is a remarkably
> small number given the scale of the operation.
No, it is a remarkably large number given that the worlds mightiest
technological superpower invaded a broken backed third world
shit-heap whose army refused to fight for saddam and melted away.
30,000 Iraqi's and hundreds of Americans would still be alive today
if the UN was permitted to continue destroying Iraqi missiles on TV
rather than the USSA desperately trying to find WMD residue to
cover up the lies it used as a pretext to sieze Iraqi oil.
Meanwhile every reference to Saudi involvement in the S11 report
has been classified, censored out. I wonder who remembers
that it was 16 SAUDI's, NO IRAQI's who, armed with nothing
but boxcutters bought the worlds mightiest superpower to it's knees!
And while Chevron pumps crude in TexIraq, OSama Bin Lidden
remains at large.
> Compare that to the bombing
> of German cities in WWII.
You want to compare the unecessary oil war Bush lied to the American
people about, to the world struggle against Nazism?
Bush is likely to be seen as the strutting brownshirt who pre-emptively
invaded other countries shouting 'wolf', when he was the one in the
sheepskin.
> Normally civilian casualties are 10x greater than
> military casualties, if not much more.
Stick your filthy corpse calculus up your arse.
None of the dead need have died. Iraqi or American.
And still they continue to fall.
Americans and their 'bodycounts'... all through the Vietnam
war you kept 'score'... winning every quarter.. right up until you lost.
>
> The Iraqi people will soon thank the Coalition for removing Saddam
I thought they claimed Saddam was already removed.. and the citizens
of your Un-Demokkkratik Regime of TexIraq are still not sufficiently
thankful that you have brought 30,000 deaths, chaos and disorder,
destruction of their infrastructure, loss of electricity and water, sewerage
in the streets, violence and anarchy, daily shooting and death, pillage
of their oil and their cultural treasures, and imposed a puppet regime
which you want them to love and be grateful for!?!?
Whats next , photo's on every street corner of the beloved Emperor
Bush with a moustache! Because in every other way, you are
making them feel like NOTHING HAS CHANGED BUT THE GUARD!
> and allowing them to breathe free,
BWAAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAAA
"We can't let you have an election because the people we don't want
might win"
BWAAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAAA!
"You can't carry guns, guns are every Americans constitutional
right to protect themselves against government TYRANNY" like yours? B^p
> and spit on the UN for doing nothing.
BWAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHHAAAA
you doctrinaire Bush mouthpieces clearly can't keep up
with your current SCRIPT!
"The Bush Administration is preparing to make a renewed
plea to the United Nations to back an international force
for Iraq as part of its urgent efforts to persuade more
countries to send peacekeeping troops." - New York Times,
Perhaps they want the Inspectors to look for WMD's?
After all they were far more effective at it than the USSA! B^D
"As American casualties from ambushes and sniper attacks rise,
senior Administration officials are seeking help from countries
that opposed the US-led intervention to oust Saddam Hussein."
The USSA wants your troops to die for their blunder, their
colony, and their Imperial conquests. No wonder the world
is politely telling them to go fuck themselves. Except a few
toadies, like P.M.R Slicker
"This isn't about humble pie," one US diplomat said.
"But I think it's recognised that to do this properly we need
help from our friends."
Oh really? What happened to the 'you are with us or ag'in us?'
bellicosity?
"Two more US soldiers were killed yesterday in an ambush
by guerillas firing guns and rocket-propelled grenades near
the northern city of Mosul, a US military spokesman said.
Pentagon hawks are among those who have been reluctantly
convinced of the need to involve countries that only weeks
ago were seen as diplomatic foes."
It's known as "Humble Pie", "Backflip", and "They wuz Wrong"
"Last week Deputy Defence Secretary Paul Wolfowitz
surprised friends by saying privately: "We desperately need the French."
"Could the Cheese eating surrender monkeys please bail us out" B^p
"Last week the new head of the US Central Command,
General John Abizaid, fed the growing clamour on
Capitol Hill for a UN peacekeeping role by warning
US troops that they should expect to stay in Iraq for at least a year.
At the same time a highly critical report by a Pentagon
advisory team, sent to Iraq by Defence Secretary
Donald Rumsfeld, said the US faced "the potential
for chaos" if it did not get a grip on security and
reconstruction within three months."
After scouring the world for new recruits to the
"coalition of the willing", US officials admit there is
little prospect of easing the pressure on the mostly US
and British troops in Iraq with-out a new Security
Council resolution - even if that means giving up
some political control.
The White House shift towards a wider role for the
UN follows refusals by France and Germany to
consider sending peacekeeping troops without a fresh UN resolution.
Last week India said it would send a division of
17,000 troops only under the auspices of the UN.
US Secretary of State Colin Powell has indicated
a willingness to explore a new resolution.
The change in US attitude comes as UN Secretary-
General Kofi Annan called on the occupying forces
to set out a "clear timetable" for a staged withdrawal.
He said numerous Iraqis had told UN officials that
"democracy should not be imposed from the outside".
Mr Annan welcomed the formation of the 25-member
Governing Council for Iraq, but said in a report to
Security Council members at the weekend that
"there is a pressing need to set out a clear and
specific sequence of events leading to the end
of the military occupation".
The issue of a new resolution was not raised in the report,
but it concluded by noting that "the legitimacy and
impartiality of the United Nations is a considerable
asset in promoting the interests of the Iraqi people".
....
- Telegraph, New York Times, Reuters
The State of Alberta
"fasgnadh" <fasg...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:bfsrj6$1og7$1...@arachne.labyrinth.net.au...
I don't know which is more pathetic.
The complete absence of facts in that post, or
The fact that you had time to waste typing that out
what the hell is the USSA???
Tell me: why is Australia leading a coalition of its own into the Solomon
Islands?
Robert
"Valentine Michael Smith" <noth...@spammer.com> wrote in message
news:l6o3iv4bpttrc0jol...@4ax.com...
> On Sat, 26 Jul 2003 10:43:27 +1000, "Inver" <in...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> >Source??
>
> Ignoreing even that the ffigures are likely inflated you may also want
> to ask her why she omitted Saddam's body count - possibly over a
> million even if you don't include the external wars.
>
OK, you guys keep talking about Saddam's body count.
What percentage were killed by weapons supplied to him by piece of shits
rayguns and bush sr.
fasgnadh
"The State of Alberta" <freea...@canadasucks.orb> wrote in message
>
> "fasgnadh" <fasg...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:bfsrj6$1og7$1...@arachne.labyrinth.net.au...
>
> I don't know which is more pathetic.
I can help you there. The most pathetic is you
being unable to deal with the facts presented, let alone the
arguments based on those facts
Let me # Highlight # the points you evaded, ducked, and implicitly conceded
B^)
"The State of Alberta" <freea...@canadasucks.orb> wrote in message
news:zhlUa.518250$ro6.12...@news2.calgary.shaw.ca...
>
> "Karen Gordon" <ar...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA> wrote in message
> news:bfsemg$ic7$1...@freenet9.carleton.ca...
> > U.S. Casualties in 1991 'Desert Storm' attack on Iraq:
> >
# All the facts remain uncontested by you #
Your point then?
# The first question you are apparently unable to answer#
Clearly you don't have a point. B^p
Remember, the Iraqi's have no choice about being
born in Iraq, the USSA came halfway round the world to kill tens
of thousands of them, steal their oil, and replace one murderous regime with
another.
(Perhaps the USA death rate is inflated by massacres in schools,
which, like everything else in Iraq, have trouble opening
since the USSA destroyed the infrastructure.
> One thing is certain: it is less than how many were being killed by
> Saddam's regime had we done nothing.
Bullshit. Nowhere near the 30,000 iraqi's killed by the invaders
in the last six months were killed by Saddam in the previous six month
period.
# You are now forced to admit that indeed more Iraqi's have been
killed by the USSA in the last six months, than by Saddam
in the previous twelve! #
But do keep on comparing this murderous regime to the previous one! B^p
I'm sure people will come to understand your comparison, especially those
who
are being killed as we speak.
> Even then you'd find something to complain about.
People being killed IS something to complain about you Bush arse licker.
Especially when compared to your pathetic bleating, when your complaint
is that someone posts the truth in Usenet! pffffffft!
> You're an amateur complainer, nothing more.
And you are clearly a professional whiner, although not a very good one.
>
> > And just look at the toll for the civilians they were supposed to be
> > liberating. Over 300% more civilians killed than military. This was
not
> > a 'war'. This was a slaughter.
>
> Nonsense. It was a testament to the discipline of the Coalition forces
> and their dedication to keep civilian casualties down.
Discipline?
BWAAAAAHAAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAAAAAA
They killed more of their own troops than the Iraqi's did!
They killed more of their British allies than the Iraqi's did!
# No rebuttal from you, because you can't defeat TRUTH #
BWAAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAAA
BWAAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAAA!
BWAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHHAAAA
____________________________
>
> The complete absence of facts in that post, or
>
I have highlighted some of the statistics, and quoted
from some of the USSA military sources cited in the
USSA media. You have cut and run..
Off you go now, lightweight.
Don't expect anyone to take you seriously in Usenet again. B^p
> The fact that you had time to waste typing that out
>
Not wasted, dozens saw your twaddle surgicly dissected,
exposed and repudiated. Then they watched you fold faster
than deck chairs on the Titanic, and run away.
> what the hell is the USSA???
There used to be a government which held people without trial,
without even charges being laid, in razor wire gulags where they
had no legal or human rights, were held indefinitely, tortured,
(some to death), and occasionally a few brought out for
a political show trial, not in a proper court, but in a Star
Chamber.
No, that earlier example was not Gitmo, but the Union of
Soviet Socialist Republics.
The Union of Soviet States of America is merely copying them.
>
> Tell me: why is Australia leading a coalition of its own into the Solomon
> Islands?
By invitation from the legitimate Solomon Islands government
with full support of all regional neighbours, and the united support
of the United Nations.
Glad to help you, you are clearly in need of some basic education
to help overcome your frightful ignorance.
They asked us to help, we help.
You were asked to fuck off, when will you learn to listen instead
of forcing your self down peoples throats?
Perhaps you could try and access information from more than
one source, Fox-TV. B^p
Petzl
Fastduck is not one to let decency or truth stand in the way of his
defence of moongod cult worship
Australia is sending troops into the Solomon Islands along with other
pacific nations for exactly the same reasons it went with the USa
and the "But, yer honer, they NEEDED killin' " defense
Jeff N
would be so few deaths, there would have been a lot less anti-war
protests. Lies spread by the UN, Jimmy Carter and Ted Kennedy made
gullible people believe that these numbers were going to be in the
hundreds of thousands. Thanks Karen for pointing out what a bunch of
unaccountable buffoons the UN and others turned out to be!
This was a great success for Bush and modern warfare!
Karen Gordon wrote:
>
> U.S. Casualties in 1991 'Desert Storm' attack on Iraq:
>
> Combat deaths: 148
> Non-combat deaths: 145 ('friendly fire' & other incidents)
> Wounded in action: 467
> __________________________________________________
>
> 2003 Before May 1/03 After May 1/03
> ('hostilities ended')
>
> AMERICAN combat deaths: 158 44
> Non-combat deaths: 79 57
>
> BRITISH combat deaths: 16 6
> Non-combat deaths: 29 4
>
> CANADIAN military deaths: 1
> " civilian deaths: 1
>
> IRAQI military deaths: 2,320 30
> " taken prisoner: 7,300 674
>
> IRAQI civilian deaths: 6,073-7,782
> " wounded: 5,103
> __________________________________________________________________________
>
> (K): Already the death toll for Americans exceeds their death toll of
> their 'desert storm' assault, and the Americans are STILL being hunted down
> and killed on a daily basis in Iraq.
> Seems the 'liberators' are not as well liked as Bush would have us believe.
>
> And just look at the toll for the civilians they were supposed to be
> liberating. Over 300% more civilians killed than military. This was not
> a 'war'. This was a slaughter.
>
> --
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> Don't blame me, I didn't vote for that son of a Bush!
>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Petzl
>This is GREAT news! If the world had known before the war that there
>would be so few deaths, there would have been a lot less anti-war
>protests. Lies spread by the UN, Jimmy Carter and Ted Kennedy made
>gullible people believe that these numbers were going to be in the
>hundreds of thousands. Thanks Karen for pointing out what a bunch of
>unaccountable buffoons the UN and others turned out to be!
>
>This was a great success for Bush and modern warfare!
>
>
>Karen Gordon wrote:
>>
>> U.S. Casualties in 1991 'Desert Storm' attack on Iraq:
>>
>> Combat deaths: 148
>> Non-combat deaths: 145 ('friendly fire' & other incidents)
>> Wounded in action: 467
>> __________________________________________________
>>
"Karen" & company don't realize fewer U.S. troops have died while on
active duty this year than last (when there was no war).
[S]
fasgnadh
"Petzl" <petzl...@SpAmCoP.NeT> wrote in message
> On Sat, 26 Jul 2003 04:09:09 GMT, "The State of Alberta"
> <freea...@canadasucks.orb> wrote:
> >
> >Tell me: why is Australia leading a coalition of its own into the Solomon
> >Islands?
> >
> Australia is sending troops into the Solomon Islands along with other
> pacific nations for exactly the same reasons it went with the USa
>
BWAAAAAAAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAAA!
Pray tell, what Weapons of Mass Destruction are they looking for in the
Islands?
I guess they have as much chance of finding the non-existant WMD's
there as in Iraq! B^D
Putzl is a moron. I'm sure he and Alberta will get on like a house on fire,
we can only hope they are trapped within it! B^p
Erik Trammel
Karen Gordon wrote:
> U.S. Casualties in 1991 'Desert Storm' attack on Iraq:
>
> Combat deaths: 148
> Non-combat deaths: 145 ('friendly fire' & other incidents)
> Wounded in action: 467
> __________________________________________________
>
> 2003 Before May 1/03 After May 1/03
> ('hostilities ended')
>
> AMERICAN combat deaths: 158 44
> Non-combat deaths: 79 57
>
> BRITISH combat deaths: 16 6
> Non-combat deaths: 29 4
>
> CANADIAN military deaths: 1
> " civilian deaths: 1
>
> IRAQI military deaths: 2,320 30
> " taken prisoner: 7,300 674
>
> IRAQI civilian deaths: 6,073-7,782
> " wounded: 5,103
> __________________________________________________________________________
>
> (K): Already the death toll for Americans exceeds their death toll of
> their 'desert storm' assault, and the Americans are STILL being hunted down
> and killed on a daily basis in Iraq.
> Seems the 'liberators' are not as well liked as Bush would have us believe.
How could they ever be liked. They are infidels.
And the number of casualties of this latest Iraq war is remarkably light
in comparison to past wars. For example, over 700,000 soldiers were
killed or died from wounds and disease in the American Civil War. In
fact in one battle, Antietam, there were about 30,000 American soldiers
killed.
The American and British combat deaths so far are substantially fewer
than the number of Canadians blown up in the Air India terrorist act of
1985. Why not try to put things in proportion? And with the Canadian
justice system the perpetrators have suffered no punishment.
Canada suffered about 3,500 casualties in one day, during the Dieppe
raid in WW WW II. And Canada had about 5,000 of its military killed in
the Korean war.
The British lost over 15,000 dead in an Afghanistan massacre in the the
19th century. Another 30,000 British and Egyptians were massacred
along with Chinese Gordon in the fall of Khartoum in 1885, to Arab
Fundamentalist Muslims led by the Madhi, an 18th century precursor of
Osama bin Laden.
There is an excellent movie, starring Charleton Heston and Laurence
Olivier on this event. Its title is Khartoum. It puts Muslim
fundamentalism and fanaticism in its real perspective. The message is
"infidels" beware.
>
> And just look at the toll for the civilians they were supposed to be
> liberating. Over 300% more civilians killed than military. This was not
> a 'war'. This was a slaughter.
No, it wasn't. Iraq is a country of about 26 million people. For it to
have sustained only about 3 or 4 thousand civilians killed in its
conquest is relatively light by past standards. And weren't 3000
Americans civilian, including women and children killed on 9/11?
Feminazis and commies like you, conveniently overlook this atrocity.
Valentine Michael Smith
wrote:
A small percentage of the weapons actually - most came from Russia
and the French (remember the #1 and #2 peace at all cost guys before
the war) and the black market from what I read and the pictures are
Mirages not F-xxs and Kalishikovs and not ......
As for where they got the weapons from - that has little if any
relevance to the question I raised which is what they did with their
police and their army. I didn't expect any serious reply of course -
these dodges are always the reply. The people in the unsupportable
position of trying to paint the U.S. as blood thirsty can look at one
side only because if they look at both sides they see how indefensible
their position is. This has nothing to do if the war was right or
wrong - but to say the US was bloodthristy and was targeting
civialians is not supported by any facts I have seen.
Talk to some of the people who have lived in opposition to the powers
that be over there - see if you can this to thier face as oppose to
some keyboard hidden where ever. Put your blinding hatred aside if
that is possible and look at the reality.
The U.S. is far from perfect in foreign policy - but this crap just
detracts from the credibility of their opposition.
Jeff N
Karen Gordon wrote:
> (K): You bet it was.... that's why he's been steadily slipping in your
> polls since the 'great accomplishment' of invading a country without a
> reason.
What is happening is normal. Bush's daddy went through the same process
after the war in '91. Are you saying since he slipped in the polls in
'91, that means it was a bad idea to go to war to remove Iraq from
Kuwait? You probably think it was bad to fight Hitler since it meant a
loss of US life.
Besides, the majority of Americans STILL support Bush. Your views are in
the minority. And whatever reflection they have of him now has nothing
to do with the war, as it was WIDELY supported here. Try again...
> And if you guys can justify the loss of at least one American a day in
> Iraq for your 'honourable war', why are your troops in Iraq whining to
> come home
Our troops 'whine' because it's a free country and they won't be hanged
for treason.
> and your president asking for 'security help' from other
> countries.
That's in answer to the bloodsucker countries like France that ask for
the spoils, but don't want to help.
> C'mon, you great military force, you - you don't need anyone
> else's help to finish what you started.
I agree. We should strong arm Iraq and take all it's oil for us, all the
other crybaby nations that don't want to help can pack sand.
> A great success: your invasion of Iraq. Shut up and keep paying your
> $3 BILLION a month to keep your troops in Iraq. Your economy is strong :->
Great. So why don't you SHUT UP and let us?!
Why kind of 3rd world country are you from anyway?
Jeff N
fasgnadh wrote:
> BWAAAAAAAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAAA!
>
> Pray tell, what Weapons of Mass Destruction are they looking for in the
> Islands?
>
> I guess they have as much chance of finding the non-existant WMD's
> there as in Iraq! B^D
>
It was morons like this that kept America from wiping out North Korea 50
years ago BEFORE they had WMD. Now, thanks to these short-sighted
idiots, we have to deal with them AFTER they have WMD.
These guys are brilliant.
The State of Alberta
"Jeff N" <j...@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:3F2369E5...@nospam.com...
> What is happening is normal. Bush's daddy went through the same process
> after the war in '91. Are you saying since he slipped in the polls in
> '91, that means it was a bad idea to go to war to remove Iraq from
> Kuwait? You probably think it was bad to fight Hitler since it meant a
> loss of US life.
Actually KG has made numerous pro-Nazi statements (typical for many rich
Ontarians). Genocide, war, destruction are fine in her books, but if
America tries to do anything about it, it's imperialism. She thinks that
anything America and its allies do is automatically bad. It's a sad sight,
but very common among the people of Ontario.
> Besides, the majority of Americans STILL support Bush. Your views are in
> the minority. And whatever reflection they have of him now has nothing
> to do with the war, as it was WIDELY supported here. Try again...
True, but she thinks they're just brainwashed - a subject she knows all too
well.
> Our troops 'whine' because it's a free country and they won't be hanged
> for treason.
They could face disciplinary action for it.
> Why kind of 3rd world country are you from anyway?
Take away US trade, investment and friendship, and Canada will be a
ninth-world country in a few weeks.
fasgnadh
> >
> > "Petzl" <petzl...@SpAmCoP.NeT> wrote in message
> > news:5694iv0stqskle6jj...@4ax.com...
> > > On Sat, 26 Jul 2003 04:09:09 GMT, "The State of Alberta"
> > > <freea...@canadasucks.orb> wrote:
> > ...
> > > >
> > > >Tell me: why is Australia leading a coalition of its own into the
Solomon
> > > >Islands?
> > > >
> > ...
> > > Australia is sending troops into the Solomon Islands along with other
> > > pacific nations for exactly the same reasons it went with the USa
> > >
So, Putzl is claiming we are are sending the troops into the
Solomons for EXACTLY THE SAME REASONS
that it went into iraq with the USA!
1. To prevent the imminent threat from their chemical
and biological Weapons of Mass destruction?
Well Hell no, they don't HAVE any, they cant AFFORD ANY
THEY DON'T WANT ANY, There isn't even a satellite
photo of a truck by a factory and a dosier full of Bush BULLSHIT! B^D
2. To overthrow their evil government
Well No, their government are the ones who INVITED US
3. To invade and kill 30,000 of them, destroy their infrastructure
and install a puppet regime of OUR choosing?
No, we are supporting the legitimate government, and going
there AT THEIR INVITATION. We are SUPPORTING,
not violating their legal system, and far from usurping their
political system, we are upholding it.
4. To Steal their oil?
No we have not siezed their assetts, nor are we conspiring with
Isreal to ship it to them with a huge discount to their energy bill!
This friendly action will cost us, not secure rare energy resources for
us.
5. To shoot them in the streets if they protest
No we have good friendly relations with the locals, who wanted us there
6. To impose our will as an Imperial colonial occupying power?
No the authirity iof the Solomon Islands government is maintained.
7. Because Howard is an arse licking Lap dog?
Nope, in this case he is a decent neighbour and globalist.
> >
> > BWAAAAAAAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAAA!
> >
> > Pray tell, what Weapons of Mass Destruction are they looking for in the
> > Islands?
> >
The Coconut of Chaos?
The Seaweed of Slaughter?
The Hydrogen(x2) and Oxygen Bomb (from the 3 metre board! ;-)
Malarial Mozzie Bio-Hazards?
The Kava of Blinding Hangovers?
> > I guess they have as much chance of finding the non-existant WMD's
> > there as in Iraq! B^D
> >
> > Putzl is a moron. I'm sure he and Alberta will get on like a house on
fire,
> > we can only hope they are trapped within it! B^p
>
> It was morons like this that kept America from wiping out North Korea 50
> years ago BEFORE they had WMD.
I know I said Putzl was a moron, but I doubt he had that much influence!
> Now, thanks to these short-sighted
> idiots, we have to deal with them AFTER they have WMD.
>
Well, even the CIA warned them that if the forced the rats
into a corner they were MORE likely to use their WMD's,
if they had any.
After watching the USSA's lies about Iraq's threat, every tinpot
tyranny has decided the ONLY way to prevent an invasion by the
USSA is to go nuclear! Kiss non-proliferation goodbye!
The chances of avoiding a nuke in a western city is now next to zero.
The drug trade shows that the USSA border is permeable to TONS
of contraband, so a suitcase nuke is no trouble to deliver.
And the USSA is making so many orphans and new enemies
there will be a surplus of willing Jihad Jockeys.
What a fucking fiasco!
> These guys are brilliant.
Only by comparison with you and Putzl.
How can you cretins POSSIBLY compare the co-operative
intervention in the Solomons with a bloody INVASION
slaughter of 30,000 people, destruction of infrastructure,
pillage of oil, chaos and anarchy in the streets, the imposition
of a puppet regime, and then, just in case you haven't upset the
locals you bitch about photos of YOUR POWS being shown
'healthy and alive on TV, and then take 4 hours with
helicopters and a volley of 10 anti-tank missiles to kill 3 men
and a boy, then post images of the carcases on the net,
fuck with the bodies, and delay the normal Muslim burial
requirement. Are you TRYING to piss those people off
or just fuckin incompetent idiots?
Within two days they were so impressed by your show of
weakness in face to face combat, that another 5 USSA soldiers
were killed. Who is winning?
Has the message sunk in yet.. You are not fighting Saddamites
who will fall back demoralised when his sons are executed,
because the Iraqi's never fought for Saddam, they hate him.
You are fighting resistance to your occupation from people
who say, "one regime is gone, we have another one". B^p
And It's one two three,
Whatta we fighting for
Don ask me I don give a damn
Next stop is Vietnam
Robert Sveinson
Jeff N wrote:
If the holy americans don't go shitting on the Koreans they have nothing
to
fear from the alleged WMD!
The bully certainly doesn't want his victims to be able to defend
himself does he??
I wonder why they are going to negotiate with the N. Koreans
but had to kill Iraqis!! Because they knew that Iraq had NO WMD,
and they fear that N.K. does!!! Fine morality!!
>
>
> These guys are brilliant.
The americans are not brilliant!! They still haven't found Osama or
Sadam!!!