casulty list

Chardok · Post by **Chardok** » 2004-04-12 01:36pm

CNN.com has posted a comprehensive list of american (And I think coalition, but not sure) casualties on their website. I don't have time to do this because I'm at work, but someone SHOULD probably check over the list, just to be sure.

Click sig for list.

Chardok · Post by **Chardok** » 2004-04-12 01:37pm

AAAHAHAHAHA!!! Like how I spelled Casulty? I'm frum tennasee!!! YEE-HAW! (Could a mod fix that and delete this?)

Iceberg · Post by **Iceberg** » 2004-04-12 01:39pm

Oh good, Greg's OK. That doesn't make all the dead any better, but it's good to know that our boy's still in one piece.

Iceberg · Post by **Iceberg** » 2004-04-12 01:53pm

777 coalition men and women are dead.

674 Americans
59 Britons
5 Bulgarians
1 Dane
1 Estonian
17 Italians
2 Poles
1 Salvadoran
11 Spaniards
2 Thai
4 Ukrainians

Col. Crackpot · Post by **Col. Crackpot** » 2004-04-12 02:08pm

777? shit.........
*bows head.

*smacks chardock for his obnoxious agenda driven psudo-tribute sig

Grand Admiral Thrawn · Post by **Grand Admiral Thrawn** » 2004-04-12 02:10pm

674 Americans dead? Wasn't it just at 600 at the start of April?

EDIT: Yes it was. At this rate I wouldn't be surprised with well over 700 by May.

Chardok · Post by **Chardok** » 2004-04-12 02:36pm

Col. Crackpot wrote:777? shit.........
*bows head.

<snip tinytext>

Now, now, I'm not advocating a pullout, just any measure which protects our boys better. I'm just saying, how many must die for Bush's Tripe and lies.

18-Till-I-Die · Post by **18-Till-I-Die** » 2004-04-12 05:52pm

My sympathies to the 777 Coalition families.

May i ask if there are definite numbers on the Iraqi caualties without being flamed? It would be interesting to know the full number of human beings drowned in this quagmire.

CaptainChewbacca · Post by **CaptainChewbacca** » 2004-04-12 05:57pm

Exact numbers are impossible due to refugee displacement, but military casualties for Iraq are but at between 7, and 10,000

18-Till-I-Die · Post by **18-Till-I-Die** » 2004-04-12 06:04pm

7-10 thousand...and add to that over seven hundred Coalition deaths and counting.

God have mercy thats a lot of blood on some one's hands.

MKSheppard · Post by **MKSheppard** » 2004-04-12 06:11pm

18-Till-I-Die wrote: God have mercy thats a lot of blood on some one's hands.

Our peopel are alive, and that's what counts, or would you rather
have us left the Falaise Gap open to let the Germans escape and allow
them to kill more allied troops instead of rocketing them mercilessly
from the sky with RAF Typhoons and Tempests?

CaptainChewbacca · Post by **CaptainChewbacca** » 2004-04-12 06:13pm

18-Till-I-Die wrote:7-10 thousand...and add to that over seven hundred Coalition deaths and counting.

God have mercy thats a lot of blood on some one's hands.

The needs of the many...

Hamel · Post by **Hamel** » 2004-04-12 06:15pm

CaptainChewbacca wrote:
18-Till-I-Die wrote:7-10 thousand...and add to that over seven hundred Coalition deaths and counting.

God have mercy thats a lot of blood on some one's hands.
The needs of the many...

Too bad the many didn't desire this "need"...

MKSheppard · Post by **MKSheppard** » 2004-04-12 06:17pm

Hamel wrote: Too bad the many didn't desire this "need"...

Then they should have fucking surrendered and waved white flags
and walked towards coalition troops with their hands in the air
instead of trying to fight.

18-Till-I-Die · Post by **18-Till-I-Die** » 2004-04-12 06:18pm

MKSheppard wrote:
18-Till-I-Die wrote: God have mercy thats a lot of blood on some one's hands.
Our peopel are alive, and that's what counts, or would you rather
have us left the Falaise Gap open to let the Germans escape and allow
them to kill more allied troops instead of rocketing them mercilessly
from the sky with RAF Typhoons and Tempests?

How about you look again and see that 777 of our people are dead. Or did the first few posts noting the number of Coalition casualities nearing the 1000 point slip past you?

MKSheppard · Post by **MKSheppard** » 2004-04-12 06:20pm

18-Till-I-Die wrote: How about you look again and see that 777 of our people are dead. Or did the first few posts noting the number of Coalition casualities nearing the 1000 point slip past you?

Would you rather it be 7,000 Coalition casualties against 7,000 Iraqi?

Idiot.

Hamel · Post by **Hamel** » 2004-04-12 06:20pm

MKSheppard wrote:
Hamel wrote: Too bad the many didn't desire this "need"...
Then they should have fucking surrendered and waved white flags
and walked towards coalition troops with their hands in the air
instead of trying to fight.

*fap fap fap*

Nah, these coalition troops should have been patrolling the borders of their respective countries to curb criminal state-sponsored illegal immigration.

Hamel · Post by **Hamel** » 2004-04-12 06:21pm

MKSheppard wrote:
18-Till-I-Die wrote: How about you look again and see that 777 of our people are dead. Or did the first few posts noting the number of Coalition casualities nearing the 1000 point slip past you?
Would you rather it be 7,000 Coalition casualties against 7,000 Iraqi?

Idiot.

For some odd reason, I doubt that's what he was suggesting

18-Till-I-Die · Post by **18-Till-I-Die** » 2004-04-12 06:21pm

MKSheppard wrote:
18-Till-I-Die wrote: How about you look again and see that 777 of our people are dead. Or did the first few posts noting the number of Coalition casualities nearing the 1000 point slip past you?
Would you rather it be 7,000 Coalition casualties against 7,000 Iraqi?

Idiot.

I'd rather have 0 Coalition and 0 Iraqi casualties. But appearantly you dont care how many of our people die as long as your side wins.

Idiot.

CaptainChewbacca · Post by **CaptainChewbacca** » 2004-04-12 06:23pm

18-Till-I-Die wrote:
MKSheppard wrote:
18-Till-I-Die wrote: How about you look again and see that 777 of our people are dead. Or did the first few posts noting the number of Coalition casualities nearing the 1000 point slip past you?
Would you rather it be 7,000 Coalition casualties against 7,000 Iraqi?

Idiot.
I'd rather have 0 Coalition and 0 Iraqi casualties. But appearantly you dont care how many of our people die as long as your side wins.

Idiot.

Would you kindly define "our people" and "your side"?

MKSheppard · Post by **MKSheppard** » 2004-04-12 06:24pm

18-Till-I-Die wrote: I'd rather have 0 Coalition and 0 Iraqi casualties. But appearantly you dont care how many of our people die as long as your side wins.

Idiot.

Idiot.

People die in the military. What, did you think they joined up to sing
Teletubby songs?

18-Till-I-Die · Post by **18-Till-I-Die** » 2004-04-12 06:24pm

Our people: Coalition.

Your side: The Bush hawks.

MKSheppard · Post by **MKSheppard** » 2004-04-12 06:25pm

18-Till-I-Die wrote:Our people: Coalition.

Your side: The Bush hawks.

Apparently you need to go to Iraq, your concern for the lives of the
enemy in combat operations would surely inspire your troops to fight
for you.

CaptainChewbacca · Post by **CaptainChewbacca** » 2004-04-12 06:25pm

18-Till-I-Die wrote:Our people: Coalition.

Your side: The Bush hawks.

OUR SIDE is America. You're a part of it, even if you don't consider yourself as such. Living in this country, paying your taxes, and contributing to the function of this country makes you such.

OUR PEOPLE are humans. In a sad situation such as this, people die.

18-Till-I-Die · Post by **18-Till-I-Die** » 2004-04-12 06:26pm

MKSheppard wrote:
18-Till-I-Die wrote: I'd rather have 0 Coalition and 0 Iraqi casualties. But appearantly you dont care how many of our people die as long as your side wins.

Idiot.
Idiot.

People die in the military. What, did you think they joined up to sing
Teletubby songs?

What are you suggesting exactly?