How many Americans have died in Iraq??

So let me get this straight. We killed as many terrorist this year as we have lost troops in the last three years? This is amazing! That we have captured more terrorist than we have had injured troops? WOW! A pity the nation is not given this information or they might want to support the war on terror. Then maybe we could let the American people know about the other countries that we are fighting in and how we have lost only eighty people world wide on the war on terror outside of Afghanistan and Iraq in the last six years. What would be the nations reaction to that?

Shhhhh you letting the secret out, now how are they going to contain the media!?!? Oh thats right, no one will print, or televise this information. It could be damaging to the anti-war movement.

 

Disgusting to think that some Americans are so deep in hatred of Bush and by extension America, that nothing anyone can say will change there mind. If these facts did get out there would would a cry of outrage from the left about how we are nothing but a bunch of killers run amok.

So your position is that Americans would be happier to know more people have been killed in Iraq than they actually think. Nice. You clearly dont have a degree in marketing do you.

You refer to all the dead as terrorists. That would require at least 19,429 terrorist acts to have been committed.i.e one for each of the dead in order for them to be considered a terrorist. What scheme have you used to classify each of the dead as a "terrorist"? and btw where do these number come from?

Another interesting statistic that you neglected to mention is the number of civilians killed since we hurriedly invaded another sovereign state under false pretenses..... some 75,000 according to some conservative estimates.

Link

This is figure that is routinely

Link

underestimated by Americans and is itself considered on the low-end of the spectrum.

So if you want to have a complete analysis of the situation using body bag statistics then by all means lets have one. If anything a concentration on American only dead by the msm does the pro-war argument a favour.

Moreover apart from killing tens of thousands of people what has the US "achieved" in Iraq?

this is a stupid comment.

there were 19 terrorists on 9/11. however there were only 4 acts of terrorism.

some 75,000 according to some conservative estimates. Link This is figure that is routinely Link

Do you have an english block?  Conservative means low end, yet you say 75,000 is conservative, and then provide a link that says 54,000.  You are not playing dumb are you?

So You are contending that America has killed those Iraqis

Moreover apart from killing tens of thousands of people what has the US "achieved" in Iraq?

and of course you have a reputable source.  Like your own blog?  let me help you as I know you are extremely challenged when it comes to reading English.  Provide A government source from a non-interested party (i.e. non islamic and of course non-american) that backs up your contention that the American Troops have killed 75,000 (by your own statement the conservative side) Iraqis.

Not caused to be killed, Killed at their hands.

And while you are at it, why dont you start a petition to pull all cops of the streets of America since they must be doing all the murdering - by not stopping every murder, I guess that is where your next infantile leap is going.  But far from me to assume what you are going to make a fool of yourself next.  Please, have all the honors yourself.

So how can they tell the difference between a dead terrorist and a dead civilian? All the dead terrorists had guns in their hands? And we all know that there's a difference between Iraqi militia members (who are now our allies) and foreign terrorists. How do they differentiate between them? Do the terrorists all have their I am a member of Al queda now give me my virgin cards in their wallets? Do they have secret terrorist tattoos branding them on their bodies somewhere? Are they wearing their official uniforms? Sorry for the skepticism but I really don't see how their can be an accurate count of dead terrorists. Oh and you can check this link for a civilian body count - not only from U.S. forces - but violent civilian, non-combatant deaths in Iraq since our invastion in 2003. The break down in security in this country is a result of our invasion and I believe that we are still responsible for those deaths even if they weren't by our soldiers. http://www.iraqbodycount.org/

actually it was one terrorist act in four parts.

when 260 terrorist were killed in two raids they were not commiting the acts of terror at the time. They did shoot at the Afghan troops which caused thier deaths. In Iraq we have people doing one of three things people from outside the nation trying to disrupt things, we call them the terrorists, then we have nation states attacking to help destablize a fledgling democrocy, and you have the locals that are devided and not sure which way they want the nation to go. In this jumble you have people fighting for many different reasons that help the terrorist and when it does not support their needs they fall away, just not all at the same time. This looks confusing but it is not. And just for the record killing the enemy is what the military is trained to do. the military is not trained to bother or kill civilians, to suggest that we as a military want to kill anyone and everyone is insulting.

but the person said that each of them had to commit a separate act or they were not terrorists.

He also does not read what he writes. Thinking every new comment is its own world.

this is a stupid comment. there were 19 terrorists on 9/11. however there were only 4 acts of terrorism.

I agree it wasn't well worded in order to make my point. How many terrorists acts do we consider the 19,000 plus people killed committed? Was it 19,000+ or just 1 (opposing our invasion)??

So how can they tell the difference between a dead terrorist and a dead civilian? All the dead terrorists had guns in their hands?

This is where I was heading. What scheme is being used? Some might call them freedom fighters? Im quite sure if Canada tried to invade the US I be out there killing and bombing as many Canadian invaders as I possible could. Does that make me a terrorist?

The reason I harbor on this point is that "terrorist" is a highly political and emotive term used to rally a population into thinking and believing that they are under some kind of threat. I'd suggest of that 19,000+ a very high percentage are just foriegn fighters trying to repell what they see as an aggressive and invading army. But of course politically you cant say that because then then average joe will say "so leave and we wont have to bother with them". Instead we need to constantly bang out terms like "terrorists" and "evil doers" and the like to describe what are essentially just a resistance movement and make the domestic population believe that another 9-11 is just around the corner.

Saying we killed 19,000+ terrorists sounds a whole lot better (some think) than saying we invaded another country and killed 19,000+ of the people who resisted us.

Do you have an english block? Conservative means low end, yet you say 75,000 is conservative, and then provide a link that says 54,000. You are not playing dumb are you?So You are contending that America has killed those Iraqis

No Dr Guy I dont have an english block. And Yes conservative does mean lower end of the spectrum. Sorry theres no prizes for getting that right.

I did say "some 75,000 according to some conservative estimates". I did not say "some 75,000 according to the most conservative estimates" The first link I provided says between 75,000 and 80,000 civilian deaths, and the second from which i will now quote

Iraqi civilian deaths are estimated at more than 54,000 and could be much higher; some unofficial estimates range into the hundreds of thousands.

is also fully in line with the 75,000 figure I gave.

Would you prefer I give the 600,000 that some studies Link offer? I do think 75,000 is a more conservative figure than 600,000. If according to you that means I have an "english block" Dr Guy then so be it.

Perhaps you ought to "conserve" your energy Dr Guy because someone who swings and misses as often as you do is hardly going to pack a bunch if indeed he ever does land a blow. And that's a mighty big "IF" from where Im standing.

So You are contending that America has killed those Iraqis Moreover apart from killing tens of thousands of people what has the US "achieved" in Iraq? and of course you have a reputable source. Like your own blog?

Sure. The source I choose to use Dr Guy, is the source I was referring to.... my source is..... Shadow War.

but did you know that 19,429 terrorist have been killed since 2003?

19,429 is tens of thousands to me. If you dispute this figure then take it up with Shadow War.

let me help you as I know you are extremely challenged when it comes to reading English.

Really? And yet I'm doing so well in this life. Go figure.

Provide A government source from a non-interested party (i.e. non islamic and of course non-american) that backs up your contention that the American Troops have killed 75,000 (by your own statement the conservative side) Iraqis.

You see this is what I dont get about your kind Dr Guy. It's like it's self sabbotage or something. You lead in with what appears to one of your favourite insults about reading comprehension, (very witty by the way, Im sure it's absolutely devasting for the people you choose to insult with it) and then you immediately not more than what, 25 pixels, down the page begin to display a total lack of reading comprehension yourself. Once Im done laughing at you, I actually, just for the briefest of moments feel sorry for you, but then of course I start laughing again and all such empathy fades.

Where Dr Guy, did I ever make the

contention that the American Troops have killed 75,000 (by your own statement the conservative side) Iraqis.

By all means, quit putting words in my *mouth* and point this out. The 75,000 figure link even has in reasonably large letters, right above it, "Documented civilian deaths from violence", it says nothing about US troops killing that number of civilians. So go for it Dr Guy "quote me". Cmon Mr Reading Comprehension "quote me".

And while you are at it, why dont you start a petition to pull all cops of the streets of America since they must be doing all the murdering - by not stopping every murder, I guess that is where your next infantile leap is going. .

Seems you're the only one leaping about here Dr Guy. Maybe thats why your feeble, insult laden rebuttals are so erratic.

But far from me to assume what you are going to make a fool of yourself next .

Yes well of course I would have said "how you are going to make a fool of yourself next" Dr Guy, but then I guess that's just me and my "english block".
Still i'd rather have an english block than be a blockhead.

To anyone else..... is this Guy for real?? And if so, why?

To anyone else..... is this Guy for real?? And if so, why?

Are you really that stupid or are you just being a caricuture?

There is no point in debating someone who does not remember the last item they wrote, and then changes their mind and denies it (hint - you can edit your responses - but not after someone has quoted them).

ok so some 75,000 civilians have died since we have invaded this is indeed bad.

but up to 125000 civilians were dieing in iraq under saddam during the 10 years of sanctions.

How many do we have left to kill? That'd be a good number to know so we can wrap this crap up.


Personally I thought we should have just stuck to Afghanistan and Bin Laden. Why do we have to waste time screwing around in Iraq, anyway?

~Zoo

I am curious, if there are 5 guys plotting to blow up a bridge in NY, and only 4 of them take part in it, and it kills 100 Americans, and they are all from Yemen, and did this to cause fear, but the 5th guy did help plan it and was a source of information but did not actually take part. Is the 5th guy a terrorist, or is he just a criminal?

If you are part of a group that is considered a terrorist group, are you not a terrorist? Even if you only encourage or help the others but do not take part in the actual act of terrorism?

The vast majority of people fighting us in Iraq are part of groups that are conducting their aggression through a means of terror tactics (IED's, Assassination, Kidnapping, Murder, etc...) and violence. They belong to groups that use "terror" as the primary means to make the populace follow their directives. They do not wear a uniform, they do not follow any code of conduct on the batle field, hence they are "terrorist".

Hows that, did I explain my use of terrorist better?

There is no point in debating someone who does not remember the last item they wrote, and then changes their mind and denies it (hint - you can edit your responses - but not after someone has quoted them).

What are you referring to here Dr Guy?

ok so some 75,000 civilians have died since we have invaded this is indeed bad.but up to 125000 civilians were dieing in iraq under saddam during the 10 years of sanctions.

So you think 75,000 in 4 years is better than 125,000 in 10? Also bearing in mind that we invaded on a pretext of fictious WMD? No one ever said we're invading Iraq so we can we stop the death of Iraqi civilians due to the sanctions "we" chose to enforce. As you say we were quite happy for Iraqi civilians to die in their thousands for over a decade.

So Im sorry but i dont understand your "but" here.

sorry i left out the per year part. that was 125,000 per year for 10

I am curious, if there are 5 guys plotting to blow up a bridge in NY, and only 4 of them take part in it, and it kills 100 Americans, and they are all from Yemen, and did this to cause fear, but the 5th guy did help plan it and was a source of information but did not actually take part. Is the 5th guy a terrorist, or is he just a criminal?

No he's a terrorist and he deserves a bullet in the head just like the other 4.

If you are part of a group that is considered a terrorist group, are you not a terrorist? Even if you only encourage or help the others but do not take part in the actual act of terrorism?

Affiliation alone doesn't make someone a terrorist. Helping terrorists to commit terrorist acts, Id say yes, dunno what

the law says.

The vast majority of people fighting us in Iraq are part of groups that are conducting their aggression through a means of terror tactics (IED's, Assassination, Kidnapping, Murder, etc...) and violence. They belong to groups that use "terror" as the primary means to make the populace follow their directives. They do not wear a uniform, they do not follow any code of conduct on the batle field, hence they are "terrorist".

For some of the 19,000+ the "terrorist" label no doubt fits. But 19,429 I dont buy into. It sounds great and obviously gives US the moral highground.

"1. They were all terrorists. 2. Terrorists are all bad and should be killed. 3. We've done the right thing by killing them. 4. We are the good guys"

Well 2 and 3 I agree with outright no matter what. But 4 only works if 1 is entirely correct. And I just dont buy that 1 is. The bulk I would suggest are more likely militants engaging in unconventional warfare against what they see as an occupying army. None of which would be neccessary, or at least our problem, if we weren't there.

And so why aren't Americans doing cartwheels in the streets over these numbers Shadow War? Its not some MSM "good news suppression" conspiracy, its just quite simply that the whole thing is a very shitty mess. And so trolling out numbers about how many more US killed this month, especially when classification of the dead into good vrs bad is at best debateable, well I fail to see how that does the pro-war camp any good at all.

Like I said, I think they MSM do you a favour not a disservice.

Well maybe not good vrs bad, but rather legitimate vrs illegitimate

So if a policeman accidentily shoots an innocent man, all policemen are bad?



You ask and answer your own question. Bad form. The answer to your question is in this and other of his posts. Perhaps you should read before you ask a rhetorical question where your answer is purely subjective.



And you are entitled to your opinion, however misguided it is.