[KHL]Republitard Fuckwit

[Surlethe]

Since it certainly seems to be succeeding, why don't you justify your statement, dipshit?

I already have. See previous posts in this thread.

Oh wait; that's right. My bad. The insurgency will never succeed because the US is building a democracy! Of course; silly me.

[KHL]

Show why 100 attacks a day is indicative of a small force, dickwad. Your made up bullshit shows only your ignorance of the footprint of any armed force; perhaps you should do something to augment that, instead of ignoring rebuttals like a fucking dipshit troll.

I already showed my evidence. Multiple times. 100 attacks a day would be utterly pathetic for any large force. The insurgency is either not nearly as large as pro-claimed or it consists of vast numbers of non comat "supporters".

Yea, and we've got, what, a Battalion since this happened? That can actually be self-sufficient. And it's likely rotten to the core with insurgents.

Yes a Battalion has been considered "fully trained" by U.S. standards. However, that doesn't mean the rest of the army is fucking useless. The Iraqi forces are taking a larger role in combat operations in ever increasing numbers.

That's nice. Unless they can function without US support, they don't count to your idiotic end-goal. Unless they aren't full of insurgents, spies, and informants, they're useless.

Lying dickwad again. The US military is showing itself incapable of beating the insurgency. It does not matter how many bags of the enemy you kill, when each death just encourages more to fight.

Ultimately, you want the Iraqi military to acheive what the US Military is failing to do: Actually defeat the insurgency.

The U.S. military isn't failing anything. You say its "encouraging more to fight" but I don't see that. No Falujahas or Najafs here. It doesn't take a strong fighting force to execute terror bombings.

Further, the Iraqi army will have two main advantages over U.S. troops. First, they will be in their home country giving them an obvious "home field advantage". Secondly, they aren't Americans which means support for attacks upon them by terrorist/insurgent groups won't be near what it is now.

Idiotic. The insurgents have the same 'home team advantage'. Are you given special training to be this stupid, or were you just dropped on your head for fucking your sister too many times?

Look moron I was describing an advantage the Iraqi army would have over their American counterparts not an advantage they would have over the insurgency. Learn to fucking read.

As for not being americans, the fact they collaorated with the Americans heavily is one of the reasons they're hated.

And once we leave that viewpoint will change as time passes.

After we leave it won't be long before many of the insurgent remnant start asking themselves "WTf are we fighting for?".

Not all are fighting because the Americans are there, sadly.

Obviously there will be excpetions to the rule. But the ones who got in it to "fight the American oppressors" will lose interest once we're gone.

Its not a red herring. This post about 2000 deaths is being used as evidence that our efforts in Iraq are a failure or waste. If it isn't "counting body bags" why even mention the number of dead?

It is a red herring, you dishonest fucktard Republidrone apologist. We are asking what the hell those two thousand died for. We're not declaring victory or defeat by them.

Oh really?

...Iraq is a reckless foreign adventure that is draining both blood and treasure in a needless diversion from the real fight against our enemies. But hey what do I know? I'm just an America hating, flag burning commie pinko

...this becomes an even more pathetic waste of blood and treasure. Its all about context.

If you believe wasting the lives of good men and women over a pack of lies is nothing more then a sad fact of life, I suggest you get some serious perspective.

Two thousand deaths would be bad in any case, no matter what. Two thousand troop deaths as a consequence of an elaborate lie is revolting.

I personally take such quotes to mean that we're losing in Iraq and that the primary evidence is the number of dead and the amount of money being spent. But Maybe thats just me...

You, of course, being a little pile of cuntslime and cockdribble, are trying to claim victory by a pile of corpses. Which is not the same, no matter how many times your lying ass says it: we're not declaring victory or loss by that standard.

Wow did you pull that out of an insult book? If not maybe you should write one!

None of us are, you lying git. Do not lie about the oppositions position. That shit gets you ejected from this forum.

Whatever dude.

I'm sure if you look hard enough you'll find a reason to ban me.

[Surlethe]

Wow did you pull that out of an insult book? If not maybe you should write one!

...

Whatever dude.

I'm sure if you look hard enough you'll find a reason to ban me.

[SirNitram]

Show why 100 attacks a day is indicative of a small force, dickwad. Your made up bullshit shows only your ignorance of the footprint of any armed force; perhaps you should do something to augment that, instead of ignoring rebuttals like a fucking dipshit troll.

I already showed my evidence. Multiple times. 100 attacks a day would be utterly pathetic for any large force. The insurgency is either not nearly as large as pro-claimed or it consists of vast numbers of non comat "supporters".

Quoting Right-Wing blogs is not evidence. Show me why 100 attacks a day is 'pathetic', fucktard. Immediately. Particularly when the US is rarely capable of that many attacks.

Yes a Battalion has been considered "fully trained" by U.S. standards. However, that doesn't mean the rest of the army is fucking useless. The Iraqi forces are taking a larger role in combat operations in ever increasing numbers.

That's nice. Unless they can function without US support, they don't count to your idiotic end-goal. Unless they aren't full of insurgents, spies, and informants, they're useless.

Lack of argument == Concession of defeat. Thank you for conceding the point.

Lying dickwad again. The US military is showing itself incapable of beating the insurgency. It does not matter how many bags of the enemy you kill, when each death just encourages more to fight.

Ultimately, you want the Iraqi military to acheive what the US Military is failing to do: Actually defeat the insurgency.

The U.S. military isn't failing anything. You say its "encouraging more to fight" but I don't see that. No Falujahas or Najafs here. It doesn't take a strong fighting force to execute terror bombings.

If it's not failing, why is the insurgency not abating?

Further, the Iraqi army will have two main advantages over U.S. troops. First, they will be in their home country giving them an obvious "home field advantage". Secondly, they aren't Americans which means support for attacks upon them by terrorist/insurgent groups won't be near what it is now.

Idiotic. The insurgents have the same 'home team advantage'. Are you given special training to be this stupid, or were you just dropped on your head for fucking your sister too many times?

Look moron I was describing an advantage the Iraqi army would have over their American counterparts not an advantage they would have over the insurgency. Learn to fucking read.

A home team advantage does not mean anything if the guy you're fighting has it too. I can read, you, on the other hand, seem to be rather deficient in this and every other layer of critical thinking.

As for not being americans, the fact they collaorated with the Americans heavily is one of the reasons they're hated.

And once we leave that viewpoint will change as time passes.

Will there be anything left by that point? You seem reluctant to look at the reailties of the attrition going on.

After we leave it won't be long before many of the insurgent remnant start asking themselves "WTf are we fighting for?".

Not all are fighting because the Americans are there, sadly.

Obviously there will be excpetions to the rule. But the ones who got in it to "fight the American oppressors" will lose interest once we're gone.

Its not a red herring. This post about 2000 deaths is being used as evidence that our efforts in Iraq are a failure or waste. If it isn't "counting body bags" why even mention the number of dead?

It is a red herring, you dishonest fucktard Republidrone apologist. We are asking what the hell those two thousand died for. We're not declaring victory or defeat by them.

Oh really?

Yes. Really.

...Iraq is a reckless foreign adventure that is draining both blood and treasure in a needless diversion from the real fight against our enemies. But hey what do I know? I'm just an America hating, flag burning commie pinko

Wow! He pointed out Iraq was an unnecessary war that is simply making more bodies. Where's the words 'We are defeated', you dishonest, inbred fuck?

...this becomes an even more pathetic waste of blood and treasure. Its all about context.

Wow! He pointed out Iraq was an unnecessary war that is simply making more bodies. Where's the words 'We are defeated', you dishonest, inbred fuck?

If you believe wasting the lives of good men and women over a pack of lies is nothing more then a sad fact of life, I suggest you get some serious perspective.

Wow! He pointed out Iraq was an unnecessary war that is simply making more bodies. Where's the words 'We are defeated', you dishonest, inbred fuck?

Two thousand deaths would be bad in any case, no matter what. Two thousand troop deaths as a consequence of an elaborate lie is revolting.

Wow! He pointed out Iraq was an unnecessary war that is simply making more bodies. Where's the words 'We are defeated', you dishonest, inbred fuck?

I personally take such quotes to mean that we're losing in Iraq and that the primary evidence is the number of dead and the amount of money being spent. But Maybe thats just me...

Yes. It's just your fucking lie. They say nothing about defeat.

You, of course, being a little pile of cuntslime and cockdribble, are trying to claim victory by a pile of corpses. Which is not the same, no matter how many times your lying ass says it: we're not declaring victory or loss by that standard.

Wow did you pull that out of an insult book? If not maybe you should write one!

So there we go, you have nothing to back up your claims, so now you'll just whine you're being insulted.

And I made that one up. Almost all my material is original. It's therapuetic after dealing with retards like you all day.

None of us are, you lying git. Do not lie about the oppositions position. That shit gets you ejected from this forum.

Whatever dude.

I'll reiterate: We don't tolerate lying gits.

I'm sure if you look hard enough you'll find a reason to ban me.

No one's looking for one, you paranoid fuck. I'm simply pointing out you're making yourself quite vunerable to it by being a troll.

[Plekhanov]

Just out of interest KHL how many tours of duty have you served in Iraq? Because if as I suspect the answer is none your astonishingly insensitive comments dismissing the deaths of 2000 of your countries service people:

People die doing their jobs every day. Thats just a sad fact of life.

and attempts to handwave away the insurgency that has killed 2000 and maimed many, many more:

Not just number of attacks. The number and scale of the attacks indicates a much smaller and weaker insurgency than you would have us believe. Even with the 100 or so attacks per day, the most we hear about are the 3-4 "big ones" that end up killing a few people. The rest may inflict injuries etc, but they aren't anything major. For a so-called "180,000 member" insurgency that is just plain pathetic.

I've given evidence Jackass. A paltry 100 attacks or less per day is not indicative of a large or particularly active combat force amongst the insurgents.

Must put you up for some kind of award for services to Chicken Hawkery, after all most freepers probably wouldn’t dismiss non fatal battlefield injuries such as amputation as “nothing major” it take a special kind of talent to do that.

Its not a red herring. This post about 2000 deaths is being used as evidence that our efforts in Iraq are a failure or waste. If it isn't "counting body bags" why even mention the number of dead?

It is a red herring, you dishonest fucktard Republidrone apologist. We are asking what the hell those two thousand died for. We're not declaring victory or defeat by them.

Oh really?

...Iraq is a reckless foreign adventure that is draining both blood and treasure in a needless diversion from the real fight against our enemies. But hey what do I know? I'm just an America hating, flag burning commie pinko

...this becomes an even more pathetic waste of blood and treasure. Its all about context.

If you believe wasting the lives of good men and women over a pack of lies is nothing more then a sad fact of life, I suggest you get some serious perspective.

Two thousand deaths would be bad in any case, no matter what. Two thousand troop deaths as a consequence of an elaborate lie is revolting.

I personally take such quotes to mean that we're losing in Iraq and that the primary evidence is the number of dead and the amount of money being spent. But Maybe thats just me...

It is just you, you fucking idiot because all the quotes you just attempted to take out of context claim not that the US is losing the in Iraq but that 2000 dead is 2000 too many brave people to have died for the Bush administrations lies.

[Wyrm]

I've given evidence Jackass. A paltry 100 attacks or less per day is not indicative of a large or particularly active combat force amongst the insurgents.

You shitstained little toilet-wipe. Israel is only 1/20th the size of Iraq, but even at its worst Israel didn't sustain five terrorist incidents per day! I would've called the terrorism in Israel pretty bad just two or three years ago, but the Iraqi insurgency puts the PLO to shame!

Yea, and we've got, what, a Battalion since this happened? That can actually be self-sufficient. And it's likely rotten to the core with insurgents.

Yes a Battalion has been considered "fully trained" by U.S. standards. However, that doesn't mean the rest of the army is fucking useless. The Iraqi forces are taking a larger role in combat operations in ever increasing numbers.

Dumbass! That's a blog, not a reputable source of any kind! A reputable news source states that the Iraqi army is a victim of corruption, so much so that the Iraqi army is probably going to poorly armed and trained, and then we CAN'T leave under the justification that the Iraqi army can handle it.

Our military is kicking their fucking ass over there. Hell we killed/captured over50,000 in 7 months. Why would the Iraqi army need to be more effective than us? Hell, if they are even 1/10th as effective they'd still be in pretty good shape.

Oh, how cute! Measuring success by body bags! Wank off to the US Army kill ratio goodness!

Dumbass! Do you realize that many of those body bags are filled with Iraqis? You know... those people we sent troops over to free from under the thumb of the EEEEEVIL Saddam Husain? Well, congradu-fucking-lations! Now they can freely rot under the glory of the new Iraqi constitution!

Further, do you know how many of those body bags are actually filled with actual insurgents and not with ordinary civilians? Will the people of Iraq (and those watching Al Gezira) even fucking care?

What happened to winning their hearts and minds, fuckwad? News flash! This is not the way to do it!

Further, the Iraqi army will have two main advantages over U.S. troops. First, they will be in their home country giving them an obvious "home field advantage". Secondly, they aren't Americans which means support for attacks upon them by terrorist/insurgent groups won't be near what it is now.

You need more lube for your cock, dumbass? Their "home-team" advantage is nullified by the fact that they're fighting the home team!

Further, the Iraqi army will have two main advantages over U.S. troops. First, they will be in their home country giving them an obvious "home field advantage". Secondly, they aren't Americans which means support for attacks upon them by terrorist/insurgent groups won't be near what it is now.

Considering that Iraqi army & police recruits are one of the leading targets of insurgent activity, you are fucking full of shit.

They are targets for the insurgency now because they are viewed as American Collaborators.

Exactly, dumbass! They're collaborators with the Americans in a Middle Eastern country, and unlike Americans, who have the average attention span of a boiled turnip, memories are long there, which means that they will probably be branded traitors-for-life and continued targets for retribution!

Its not a red herring. This post about 2000 deaths is being used as evidence that our efforts in Iraq are a failure or waste. If it isn't "counting body bags" why even mention the number of dead?

So I guess showing failure or defeat by counting body bags is ok then right?

Oh N0ES! Over 2,000 of us got pwnd and now we gotta get outta there like pussies!

You fucking decerebrate! The OP was not how a measily 2,000 of our own were killed. It was a question of whether their lives were worth it. Did they die for a noble cause? That was the true debate!

You have adequately proven how low-wattage the lightbulb you use for a head is.

Here's a message from Reginald the Demon!



Thankyou! Thankyou!

[KHL]

Show why 100 attacks a day is indicative of a small force, dickwad. Your made up bullshit shows only your ignorance of the footprint of any armed force; perhaps you should do something to augment that, instead of ignoring rebuttals like a fucking dipshit troll.

I already showed my evidence. Multiple times. 100 attacks a day would be utterly pathetic for any large force. The insurgency is either not nearly as large as pro-claimed or it consists of vast numbers of non comat "supporters".

Quoting Right-Wing blogs is not evidence. Show me why 100 attacks a day is 'pathetic', fucktard. Immediately. Particularly when the US is rarely capable of that many attacks.

. The term "attacks" is used loosely. Namely every time an explosive device is set off somewhere is deemed an attack. You are ignoring the scale of those attacks. A single U.S. attack inflicts more damage on the enemey than a 1000 of these insurgent attacks.

Lack of argument == Concession of defeat. Thank you for conceding the point.

Oh I'm sorry. I didn't realize that a string of negative hypotheticals constituted an "argument". Maybe you could present some evidence to back up your statements and then I'll have something to say about it.

If it's not failing, why is the insurgency not abating?

I would state the case that it is abating. Sure they've kept up the suicide and roadside bombings, but it's going to be tough for anyone to eliminate those completely. They aren't taking over any cities such as Fallujah and Najaf, nor mounting any large scale attacks.

A home team advantage does not mean anything if the guy you're fighting has it too. I can read, you, on the other hand, seem to be rather deficient in this and every other layer of critical thinking.

It is an advantage that the IRAQI ARMY will have that the AMERICAN ARMY does not. The fact that the insurgency will also have this advantage is irrelevent. If you want to argue that the two "cancel each other out" it still is a benefit not currently enjoyed by the U.S.

And once we leave that viewpoint will change as time passes.

Will there be anything left by that point? You seem reluctant to look at the reailties of the attrition going on.

The realities are that we are killing many more of them than they are killing of us. Believe it or not, may wars are won by killing more of the enemy than they kill of you. Further every civilian they kill weakens their support amongst the public which brings us closer to victory.

Its not a red herring. This post about 2000 deaths is being used as evidence that our efforts in Iraq are a failure or waste. If it isn't "counting body bags" why even mention the number of dead?

It is a red herring, you dishonest fucktard Republidrone apologist. We are asking what the hell those two thousand died for. We're not declaring victory or defeat by them.

Oh really?[/quote]

Yes. Really.

...Iraq is a reckless foreign adventure that is draining both blood and treasure in a needless diversion from the real fight against our enemies. But hey what do I know? I'm just an America hating, flag burning commie pinko

Wow! He pointed out Iraq was an unnecessary war that is simply making more bodies. Where's the words 'We are defeated', you dishonest, inbred fuck?

It is implied that he views activities in Iraq as a failure. Defeat and failure can be used synonimously in this situation.

...this becomes an even more pathetic waste of blood and treasure. Its all about context.

Wow! He pointed out Iraq was an unnecessary war that is simply making more bodies. Where's the words 'We are defeated', you dishonest, inbred fuck?
[/quote]
It is implied that he views activities in Iraq as a failure. Defeat and failure can be used synonimously in this situation.

If you believe wasting the lives of good men and women over a pack of lies is nothing more then a sad fact of life, I suggest you get some serious perspective.

Wow! He pointed out Iraq was an unnecessary war that is simply making more bodies. Where's the words 'We are defeated', you dishonest, inbred fuck?
[/quote]

It is implied that he views activities in Iraq as a failure. Defeat and failure can be used synonimously in this situation.

Two thousand deaths would be bad in any case, no matter what. Two thousand troop deaths as a consequence of an elaborate lie is revolting.

Wow! He pointed out Iraq was an unnecessary war that is simply making more bodies. Where's the words 'We are defeated', you dishonest, inbred fuck?

I personally take such quotes to mean that we're losing in Iraq and that the primary evidence is the number of dead and the amount of money being spent. But Maybe thats just me...

Yes. It's just your fucking lie. They say nothing about defeat.

Defeat is implied in their words. If anyone of them wish to step forward and state that they don't view our actions in Iraq as "defeat" or "failure" then I'll withdraw my statement.

You, of course, being a little pile of cuntslime and cockdribble, are trying to claim victory by a pile of corpses. Which is not the same, no matter how many times your lying ass says it: we're not declaring victory or loss by that standard.

Wow did you pull that out of an insult book? If not maybe you should write one!

So there we go, you have nothing to back up your claims, so now you'll just whine you're being insulted.

Whose whining? It only makes you look more pathetic that you can't carry on an "adult" conversation.

And I do believe I have backed up everything I've said.

And I made that one up. Almost all my material is original. It's therapuetic after dealing with retards like you all day.

Yay

Well I'm out for the night. Maybe we can pick this up tommorrow!

[SirNitram]

I already showed my evidence. Multiple times. 100 attacks a day would be utterly pathetic for any large force. The insurgency is either not nearly as large as pro-claimed or it consists of vast numbers of non comat "supporters".

Quoting Right-Wing blogs is not evidence. Show me why 100 attacks a day is 'pathetic', fucktard. Immediately. Particularly when the US is rarely capable of that many attacks.

. The term "attacks" is used loosely. Namely every time an explosive device is set off somewhere is deemed an attack. You are ignoring the scale of those attacks. A single U.S. attack inflicts more damage on the enemey than a 1000 of these insurgent attacks.

Not really. A single attack today killed 4 soldiers and 11 Iraqis. Link to a real news source.

1000 such attacks would result in a death toll of 4,000 US troops.. Twice what have been sustained so far.. And 11,000 Iraqis. So you're full of shit, really. As usual, when challenged to back something up, you lie.

Lack of argument == Concession of defeat. Thank you for conceding the point.

Oh I'm sorry. I didn't realize that a string of negative hypotheticals constituted an "argument". Maybe you could present some evidence to back up your statements and then I'll have something to say about it.

You seem to be lacking in rebuttals as to why any of what I said is not worthwhile, boy.

If it's not failing, why is the insurgency not abating?

I would state the case that it is abating. Sure they've kept up the suicide and roadside bombings, but it's going to be tough for anyone to eliminate those completely. They aren't taking over any cities such as Fallujah and Najaf, nor mounting any large scale attacks.

Hey, imbecile. Last month was the deadliest since the election. That's actual number-crunching. If you did math, your bullshit wouldn't spew from your mouth. Unless, of course, you're just a repugnant shithead.

A home team advantage does not mean anything if the guy you're fighting has it too. I can read, you, on the other hand, seem to be rather deficient in this and every other layer of critical thinking.

It is an advantage that the IRAQI ARMY will have that the AMERICAN ARMY does not. The fact that the insurgency will also have this advantage is irrelevent. If you want to argue that the two "cancel each other out" it still is a benefit not currently enjoyed by the U.S.

But it's not an advantage, as I have explained twice. You are simply too stupid to get that.

And once we leave that viewpoint will change as time passes.

Will there be anything left by that point? You seem reluctant to look at the reailties of the attrition going on.

The realities are that we are killing many more of them than they are killing of us. Believe it or not, may wars are won by killing more of the enemy than they kill of you. Further every civilian they kill weakens their support amongst the public which brings us closer to victory.

Prove the latter. Seriously. Show me a poll that indicates anything but the 1% support for the US at this time.

Its not a red herring. This post about 2000 deaths is being used as evidence that our efforts in Iraq are a failure or waste. If it isn't "counting body bags" why even mention the number of dead?

It is a red herring, you dishonest fucktard Republidrone apologist. We are asking what the hell those two thousand died for. We're not declaring victory or defeat by them.

Oh really?

Yes. Really.

...Iraq is a reckless foreign adventure that is draining both blood and treasure in a needless diversion from the real fight against our enemies. But hey what do I know? I'm just an America hating, flag burning commie pinko

Wow! He pointed out Iraq was an unnecessary war that is simply making more bodies. Where's the words 'We are defeated', you dishonest, inbred fuck?

It is implied that he views activities in Iraq as a failure. Defeat and failure can be used synonimously in this situation.[/quote]

You're a liar. You are inserting words in his mouth.

...this becomes an even more pathetic waste of blood and treasure. Its all about context.

Wow! He pointed out Iraq was an unnecessary war that is simply making more bodies. Where's the words 'We are defeated', you dishonest, inbred fuck?

It is implied that he views activities in Iraq as a failure. Defeat and failure can be used synonimously in this situation.[/quote]

You're a liar. You are inserting words in his mouth.

If you believe wasting the lives of good men and women over a pack of lies is nothing more then a sad fact of life, I suggest you get some serious perspective.

Wow! He pointed out Iraq was an unnecessary war that is simply making more bodies. Where's the words 'We are defeated', you dishonest, inbred fuck?

It is implied that he views activities in Iraq as a failure. Defeat and failure can be used synonimously in this situation.[/quote]

You're a liar. You are inserting words in his mouth.

Two thousand deaths would be bad in any case, no matter what. Two thousand troop deaths as a consequence of an elaborate lie is revolting.

Wow! He pointed out Iraq was an unnecessary war that is simply making more bodies. Where's the words 'We are defeated', you dishonest, inbred fuck?

I personally take such quotes to mean that we're losing in Iraq and that the primary evidence is the number of dead and the amount of money being spent. But Maybe thats just me...

Yes. It's just your fucking lie. They say nothing about defeat.

Defeat is implied in their words. If anyone of them wish to step forward and state that they don't view our actions in Iraq as "defeat" or "failure" then I'll withdraw my statement.

You're a lying fuck placing words into respect member's mouths, you mouth-breathing fucktard.

Wow did you pull that out of an insult book? If not maybe you should write one!

So there we go, you have nothing to back up your claims, so now you'll just whine you're being insulted.

Whose whining? It only makes you look more pathetic that you can't carry on an "adult" conversation.

Shit, kid, you wouldn't know 'adult' if it came up behind you and sodomized you with a dildo!

An adult conversation is one in which you are honest, as opposed to sticking words in other people's mouths. An adult debate is where you show respect to your opponent, not whine that he's not being mature cause he's a potty mouth.

And I do believe I have backed up everything I've said.

Then you're either a liar or delusional.

And I made that one up. Almost all my material is original. It's therapuetic after dealing with retards like you all day.

Yay

Well I'm out for the night. Maybe we can pick this up tommorrow!

Maybe you can actually debate honestly and maturely!

Aw, who am I kidding? You'll continue to troll like a two year old who thinks he's clever.

[FSTargetDrone]

Further every civilian they kill weakens their support amongst the public which brings us closer to victory.

That's debatable. Who's to say your typical Iraqi doesn't look at the situation like so:

Sadaam in power. Things bad, could be better.

US comes in. Things are suddenly shitty. My nieghbor was just killed in some crossfire between some US soldiers and insurgents. I can't go to work because there's no power because the power lines were cut by the insurgents who are fighting the US soldiers. There's not enough fuel, I can't drive anywhere, can't buy things since I'm not working, there seems to be nothing else to do...

Funny how these insurgents weren't here before the US came in...

Blame the US!

[Wyrm]

I already showed my evidence. Multiple times. 100 attacks a day would be utterly pathetic for any large force. The insurgency is either not nearly as large as pro-claimed or it consists of vast numbers of non comat "supporters".

Your "evidence," you aborted foetus, is shit. Get some REAL sources to back you up, dick-munch.

Lying dickwad again. The US military is showing itself incapable of beating the insurgency. It does not matter how many bags of the enemy you kill, when each death just encourages more to fight.

Ultimately, you want the Iraqi military to acheive what the US Military is failing to do: Actually defeat the insurgency.

The U.S. military isn't failing anything. You say its "encouraging more to fight" but I don't see that. No Falujahas or Najafs here. It doesn't take a strong fighting force to execute terror bombings.

No, just the highest incidence of terrorist bombings in the Middle East and a rising rate of death for American soldiers and God-knows how many civilians and American civies, most of which occured after the fighting was official over.

The reason why there's no more Falujahas or Najafs is because the insurgency isn't fucking stupid. They've learned that going out openly like that isn't a wise idea, so they stick to unconventional warfare like NOT gathering in one place and drawing attention to themselves.

And I thought I'd put to rest in an earlier post that, with reasonable estimates of the forces of the insurgency that 100 bombings/day is just about right for an insurgency of 180,000!

Look moron I was describing an advantage the Iraqi army would have over their American counterparts not an advantage they would have over the insurgency. Learn to fucking read.

Some advantage, dipshit. They're poorly armed compared to your average American soldier, they're a bunch of chickenshits, don't even have the numbers of well-trained soldiers that the Americans do, and the Iraqi army has been crippled by corruption so even these abilities are likely exaggerated.

And once we leave that viewpoint will change as time passes.

Bullocks! Just because you have the attention span of the average zombie doesn't mean that the stink of American collaborator will not stick to the Iraqi army. Do you think that these people will easily forgive the Baathists? Do you think they'll easily forgive the Americans and anyone connected to the Americans?

The answers to both questions is "NO!" by the way...

Obviously there will be excpetions to the rule. But the ones who got in it to "fight the American oppressors" will lose interest once we're gone.

Again, projecting your nationally-caused ADD onto the rest of the world. Pathetic!

Oh really?

...Iraq is a reckless foreign adventure that is draining both blood and treasure in a needless diversion from the real fight against our enemies. But hey what do I know? I'm just an America hating, flag burning commie pinko

...this becomes an even more pathetic waste of blood and treasure. Its all about context.

If you believe wasting the lives of good men and women over a pack of lies is nothing more then a sad fact of life, I suggest you get some serious perspective.

Two thousand deaths would be bad in any case, no matter what. Two thousand troop deaths as a consequence of an elaborate lie is revolting.

I personally take such quotes to mean that we're losing in Iraq and that the primary evidence is the number of dead and the amount of money being spent. But Maybe thats just me...

Yes, it is just you. Very good. You win a cookie.

Whatever dude.

I'm sure if you look hard enough you'll find a reason to ban me.

Oh, and we will!

[brianeyci]

Fuck I nearly threw up my food reading the past three pages laughing.

KHL I stopped flaming you a few pages ago to try and get something out of you. Maybe that was a mistake.

If I wasn't forced to answer stupid questions about Clinton, whom I introduced as a mere historical footnote, or constantly having to fend off the whole "You're just a Bush apologist" and other various ad hominem bullshit I could have posted like this before.

This post had absolutely nothing to do with Bush and had everything to do with the creation of Democracy in Iraq.

So it's not okay for me to mention Bush, but it's okay for you to mention Clinton.

And of course The King.

Ok I concede.

Iraq was better under Saddam. The U.S. is evil and democracy can't work in the middle east.

Never got an apology for that either.



See you later dweeb. I just hope your idiocy doesn't contaminate any other threads.

Brian

[Wyrm]

See you later dweeb. I just hope your idiocy doesn't contaminate any other threads.

It's far too late for that, I'm afraid. It spreads.

[Darth Wong]

You've yet to provide evidence. I'm sorry, you ignorant fucking twat, but you need evidence to be taken seriously.

I've given evidence Jackass. A paltry 100 attacks or less per day is not indicative of a large or particularly active combat force amongst the insurgents.

The insurgents aren't supposed to be a conventional "combat force", you raving imbecile. You still refuse to accept that you are not dealing with a conventional military.

Let me make this very simple for you: PROVIDE YOUR EVIDENCE THAT AN ACTIVE INSURGENCY IS EXPECTED TO CONDUCT AT LEAST 100 ATTACKS A DAY. If you honestly believe you have already done so, do it again so that we can see it, because I guess we must have missed it the first time. If you refuse, you're history.

[Surlethe]

Whose whining? It only makes you look more pathetic that you can't carry on an "adult" conversation.

[Wyrm]

Whose whining? It only makes you look more pathetic that you can't carry on an "adult" conversation.

死ね、馬鹿！

[Stark]

Man, I did some research and posted some numbers and tried to encourage some discussion and speculation... and our newest apologist just can't stop frothing at the mouth long enough to contribute. It makes me feel sad.

[KHL]

You've yet to provide evidence. I'm sorry, you ignorant fucking twat, but you need evidence to be taken seriously.

I've given evidence Jackass. A paltry 100 attacks or less per day is not indicative of a large or particularly active combat force amongst the insurgents.

The insurgents aren't supposed to be a conventional "combat force", you raving imbecile. You still refuse to accept that you are not dealing with a conventional military.

Well the Insurgency isn't a conventional military. No shit sherlock.

Let me make this very simple for you: PROVIDE YOUR EVIDENCE THAT AN ACTIVE INSURGENCY IS EXPECTED TO CONDUCT AT LEAST 100 ATTACKS A DAY. If you honestly believe you have already done so, do it again so that we can see it, because I guess we must have missed it the first time. If you refuse, you're history.

My evidence is that an insurgency containing 180,000 people as has been purported to avergate 100 attacks per day is PATHETIC.

For every 1800 insurgents they can only manage 1 attack per day.

However, if go with a much lower estimate of say 10-15,000 then you get an average of 1 attack per day for every 100-150 insurgents which would seem to be much more realistic number to me.

IF the insurgency is some large mass, number into the hundred thousands, it must comprise mostly of non combatant supporters, or sympathizers and have a relatively small "combat" force.

[HemlockGrey]

However, if go with a much lower estimate of say 10-15,000 then you get an average of 1 attack per day for every 100-150 insurgents which would seem to be much more realistic number to me.

And you base this upon what?

[SirNitram]

"What is your evidence 100 attacks per day is pathetic?"

"My evidence is that 100 attackers per day is pathetic!"

Circular logic, KHL be thy name.

[Wyrm]

My evidence is that an insurgency containing 180,000 people as has been purported to avergate 100 attacks per day is PATHETIC.

There he goes!

[Ace Pace]

KHL, lets use some comparisons, without hard numbers, maybe it suits your style better.

Israel VS palestine, 2000-2005 Intifada. The Hamas and other terror groups have support amongst the populace a far larger percentage of the population on their side, and still....less then 100 attacks per YEAR.

Before you go off about how Israel is far smaller, lets scale it down, and quick mental math gives me that its STILL a very low number of attacks.

The Iraqi resistence is more effective then a terror group with 5 years of direct combat experiance.

Anything else?

[Edi]

Let me make this very simple for you: PROVIDE YOUR EVIDENCE THAT AN ACTIVE INSURGENCY IS EXPECTED TO CONDUCT AT LEAST 100 ATTACKS A DAY. If you honestly believe you have already done so, do it again so that we can see it, because I guess we must have missed it the first time. If you refuse, you're history.

My evidence is that an insurgency containing 180,000 people as has been purported to avergate 100 attacks per day is PATHETIC.

Goodbye, fuckwit. Again you chose to ignore my warning three pages ago, and it really is past time that you got your cowardly ass tossed out of here. Unless you actually back that ridiculous assertion up with something more than the shell game you've been playing, you really will be gone. Insulting the board owner and dismissing his demand for evidence when posted like that has seen far better posters than you being unceremoniously booted out the door even when they had largely the same political orientation and opinions. What makes you think you are somehow special enough to avoid that fate?

Edi

[AdmiralKanos]

Let me make this very simple for you: PROVIDE YOUR EVIDENCE THAT AN ACTIVE INSURGENCY IS EXPECTED TO CONDUCT AT LEAST 100 ATTACKS A DAY. If you honestly believe you have already done so, do it again so that we can see it, because I guess we must have missed it the first time. If you refuse, you're history.

My evidence is that an insurgency containing 180,000 people as has been purported to avergate 100 attacks per day is PATHETIC.

In other words, your "evidence" is that you say so. On this board, we have a simple rule: when you are challenged to back up your claims, you must either do so, or back down. You have done neither.



No doubt you will tell all of your Republitard buddies that you were banned for being Republican. False persecution complex is a common psychological disorder among your ilk. But the truth is laid bare for all to see, right here in this thread. I've banned leftists for less trolling than you've done, and in the end, you were simply banned for being an idiot whose idea of backing up a claim was to repeat it in capital letters.

[Wyrm]

An' that's the end of him! Put another notch in my BAN-WATCH cane!

[Ace Pace]

Whoa...that was...unexpected.