Bush's Toll - 3200 and counting

[Acriku]

There have been 225 confirmed coalition deaths in the war as of June 18, 2003.

From http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2003/iraq/forces/casualties/

[SurlyPIG]

As with the civillian casualties, most are are friendly-fire accidents.

[Ice_Cube]

Are you trying to say that American troops should stay for more than a yearly period? If so, that is hardly a "free" Iraq that was one of Bushes fake excuses for this blatent oil grab. Even the troops shoed this with the draping and sticking up of American flags to mark their global domination, only to be quickly taken down as they were told it might "upset" the people and give out the "wrong idea". Please, martial law is not freedom. The quicker America gets their mitts out of Iraq the better.

And you can times that fake figue you have got there Ariku. Its from CNN, hardly a non-bias source free from Bushes weak properganda.

[DukeLeto]

North Korea? Don't tell me you're talking about the Korean war...surely even you aren't that stupid...

Defending S. Korea was one thing, but the original plan was to completely take over N. Korea (would have worked too, if it wern't for the Chinese).

Oh, and how could I have forgotten Bosnia and Yugoslavia? Silly me. What's that bring the count of countries the US has invaded without provocation up to (not including Iraq)? 7, with 3 more on the way! And that's just this century! ::)

[Dude_Doc]

What's that bring the count of countries the US has invaded without provocation up to (not including Iraq)? 7, with 3 more on the way! And that's just this century!

Are you talking about Edric's Star Wars map?

[DukeLeto]

Eh? What map? I'm just going by historical reference. ???

[SurlyPIG]

OMG that's pathetic Duke go talk to a Korean and see what they think about the Korean war.

Bosnia? KOSOVO? Your gross ignorance is no excuse for even suggesting such filth. No NATO country had *ANY* reason to enter into that fight other than ending it. So unless you're going against the UN (organized peacekeeping force project UNPROFOR United Nations Protection Force) and all its participants, you're not only being stupid but being a hypocrit. If not for UNPROFOR and NATO's air strike backing them up, the entire former Yugoslavia might be a giant, bloody stain.

[Acriku]

Ice_Cube, that's rediculous. They don't just post figures, they post every name and picture of the coalition forces that died there. It's hard to fake all of those and leave many more out without anybody informing them of it. You're too brainwashed to trust anything.

[Ice_Cube]

Its hard to leave out the fact about the casualties? umm......no. Brainwashed by whom? Bushes properganda cause it makes him look like a jerk?

[Acriku]

It's hard to leave out coalition casualties, whereas enemy casualties were not counted on purpose (as said by the Pentagon before the war).

[Ice_Cube]

whereas enemy casualties were not counted on purpose (as said by the Pentagon before the war).

How conveient can you get! this is exactly my point. America wants to make the war look justified (which it wasn't) and to do this, didn't bother to count the casualties of the enemies (civillians with half broken guns) and probably made up some lame excuse not to count.

[Acriku]

Is your brainwashing that deep? Be reasonable.

"We really don't know how many civilian deaths there have been, and we don't know how many of them can be attributed to coalition action, as opposed to action on the part of Iraqi armed forces as they defended themselves," Secretary of State Colin L. Powell said in a BBC interview Sunday.

Historically, the Pentagon has not tried to count civilian casualties and losses resulting from U.S. military action. Military officials have given various reasons for this, citing principally the time and resources involved and the difficulty of separating damage caused by U.S. forces from damage caused by the enemy.

Sewall added that it would be "unrealistic" to expect the Pentagon to come up with "a reliable figure" for civilian casualties given the "size, intensity and speed" of the U.S. campaign. But she said investigating at least some incidents would not only bolster U.S. credibility but also contribute to better military planning next time by understanding the actual effects of particular U.S. battlefield decisions.

One Air Force general, asked why the military has not done such postwar accounting in the past, said it has been more cost-effective to pour resources into increasingly sophisticated weaponry and intelligence-gathering equipment.

I need to correct myself in that the Pentagon said they wouldn't count civilian casualties. (This will probably make your panties even more in a bunch)

From http://www.refuseandresist.org/war/art.php?aid=702