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

No Dr Guy, again you demonstrate your rather weak handle on logic. Saying that "we are the good guys" only works if everyone we killed was a terrorist is not the same as saying that 'we are all bad guys" because "they were not all bad guys". It simply means that sometimes, some of us are the bad guys. Which was the whole point of the remainder of what I said. This idea that we are 100% right and just is absurd. I dont believe everyone our forces have killed could be classified as a "terrorist", I dont believe 19,000 + terrorists have been killed. It sounds great (to some) but I dont buy it.

So the question is how often are we the good guys and my opinion is that given this was an invasion based on false pretenses our good guy stats are very, very low. So low that we should never have gone, should not still be there and sure as ever shouldn't be promoting the thousands more we've killed this year as a good and positive thing.

where your answer is purely subjective

Yep its about as subjective as the classification of 19,429 as all being terrorists.

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

ditto.

Now are you just going to gloss over this?

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? Smells like nonsensical slander to me which doesn;t surpirse me considering you're clearly little more than a borderline troll.

aying that "we are the good guys" only works if everyone we killed was a terrorist is not the same as saying that 'we are all bad guys" because "they were not all bad guys".

maybe in parchesi or clue there are good, bad and ugly.  But in war, there is just good and bad.  The good guys dont always do good, and the bad guys dont always do bad.  However, they are labeled as such for a simple reason.  You either support them, or their enemies.

By implication, since we cannot prove that every death is a terrorist (nor can we prove that every guy a cop shoots warrants it), then by your definition, we must be against them for not being perfect.  This goes directly to the whole farce of the ones on the left spitting on the troops (literally) while saying they support them.  Sure, they do - in a pigs eye.  The analogy with the police was to make it more real to you (since I doubt you have been to Iraq or in combat).

Smells like nonsensical slander

Only to someone who fears their own words.  As  no accusations were made, and just a hint given for your future reference, I can only surmise you are hoping no one copied your words so that you can erase some of them.  Guilty conscious and all.

however, if you think that is slander, I invite you to contact your lawyer.  I would love to recieve a letter from him over those words.  if any of them are stupid enough to take such a case.

And while I may be a borderline troll, at least I read what I write and am not constantly contradicting myself and denying what I have written. Pot, meet kettle.

hate to burst your bubble but more civilians die in war than warriors because there are more civilians.


in this case tho the brave Muslims are hiding behind the civilians. so that when they get shot the terrorists. their buddies can come in grab their weapons and then claim that we shot civilians. where have you been during the conflicts with Israel.

Only to someone who fears their own words. As no accusations were made, and just a hint given for your future reference,.

In other words there is ZERO basis for such a claim in this thread or any other and you're just trolling.

I can only surmise you are hoping no one copied your words so that you can erase some of them. Guilty conscious and all

Dr Guy Ive asked a number of times in this thread for you to quote me to support your claims that I said this and that. Thats hardly the action of someone with a guilty conscious, quite the opposite in fact. It's the actions of someone with absolutely nothing to hide. Lets recap:

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".

The fact is Dr Guy you bandy around infantile terms and insults right from the get go, and then proceed to demonstrate that you are more incapable than anyone else. You attempt to put words in peoples "mouths" and make false claims that they said this or that. When you're called on it to back it up with quotes, you cant and instead of just admitting to that, you chose to embark on a game of insinuation that they back edit their posts to fit their current position.

When asked that you support these new claims with fact, you say you cant but that you know they must have a guilty conscious. You just cant back up a damn thing you say now can you?

You are Dr Guy a sad little troll and henceforth I shall treat and refer to you as one. Feeding time is over.

hate to burst your bubble but more civilians die in war than warriors because there are more civilians.

My "bubble" doesn't rest of the idea that they were danielost.

The quote you've taken from me doesn't suggest any of the 19,429 were civilians but rather than not all of them were terrorists.

In other words there is ZERO basis for such a claim in this thread or any other and you're just trolling.

Learn to read threads.  You are mixing (again as always) comments, and trying to apply a comment made on one statement to another.  Sorry, this may work on your idiot site (Smirking chimp maybe?), but not here.  if you cant follow a thread, with quotes, dont bother posting.  it just makes you look stupid, not the object of your attack.  And no, no one else here is going to rally round you like on your other site since here - every one actually thinks for themselves, they do not parrot the line fed to them by handlers.  Sorry you cant or dont realize that.

i would suggest most of them weren't. but the way the enemy operates who knows for sure you.

Sorry I dont get your point?

Maybe I've got this all wrong, but isn't the reason there's estimates in the first place because the US army refused to count the dead? http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/national/189877_civilians08.html Surely they haven't given up and returned to Vietnam style pointless counting?

I have had enough of this false pretenses crap that has been disproved over and over again. Just so we are clear which of the false pretenses is it that you speak of so I can slam the door on your drug induced fallacy and maybe help you to see the light? List one or as many as you wish and I will disprove them point by point on the condition that once done you will stop bringing it up once and for all. Deal? Or no deal?

The law says very clearly that if anyone is not in a uniform and takes up arms against a military force they are classified as an illegal combatant, the law also states that illegal combatants are not covered by any laws or rules of warfare. This means that the armed forces of any nation state may do with these illegal combatants what they will with no condemnation from other nation states. If an illegal combatant is caught on the field of battle they may be shot, tortured, hung, killed in any way the legal combatants deem fit. This is what the law states. It has been published for over fifty years and is accepted by all civilized nations in the world. They are called the Geneva Conventions and accords. All US military are given classes in the laws of warfare in boot camp and is refreshed every year. Violation of those rules are punishable by imprisonment or death by US law. Killing innocent non-combatants is punishable by imprisonment or death by firing squad or hanging. This makes it really hard to be a blood thirsty out of control serviceman on a killing spree. Knowing that someone broke those laws and not reporting it makes you culpable and subject to the death penalty as well. The President of the United States said in his speech that anyone that supports, aids, or gives safe harbor to a terrorist will be treated as a terrorist. Of the 19,000 terrorist killed they are all terrorist. The number is actually higher what was released was an estimate of confirmed terrorist not the exact number because the United States is not going to give exact numbers but the numbers given are accurate as to their status.

You've got to much attitude for me to bother making a deal with over anything but if you think you can; disprove that the Bush Administration took the country to war on the basis that Iraq posed an imminent danger to the United States due to their WMD program(s).

Given no WMD were ever found I'd like to know how this wouldn't be considered false pretences.

bush used the same info that the congress used when they declared war.

since then we have found out the director of the CIA was giving false info so that he could write a book later condemning bush for going to war.



the wmds are in Syria.

Given omniscience, this would be a valid argument, However, given that no one on earth posses it, it is a stupid standard that can never be met. At the time, it was "Believed" by both Bush and congress Saddam did have them. Long before Bush, the democrats under Clinton (and yes, the republicans as well - but then they are not denying they said it) were claiming he had them and they must be disposed of. He never showed evidence he had, so the assumption and the intelligence was they were there.

Therefor, to all but party line parrots with a memory span that does not predate Bush, it is not a lie, it was simply incorrect intelligence.

So again, answer Paladin's challenge with facts, not talking points.

I gotta hand it to you Tiddler, that was a pretty nice way to avoid the challenge.

Sounds to me like you are making excuses after posting as if you have no fear of anyone on this site. I guess DrGuy was right when he said you contradict yourself a lot. Have you been hanging around the real resident troll of this site? Col gene. If not I can introduce you two and you guys can form a duo. You can be the Duo Ben-gay, but it will be upt to you 2 to decide who will be Ben.

So you think Im fearless huh? You're easily impressed.



Yup guessing at it would be about right.



So if he's the troll then how come your only "contribution" to this thread is yet another personal attack on me? Do you actually have a point of view on the subject at hand Charles or are you simply too blinded by your carry over hatred to participate.

Afterall the subject is only "How many Americans have died in Iraq?". But clearly you have more important things on your agenda Charles, like name calling and other assorted nonsense.

Well bearing in mind that, as above, feeding time for you is over Dr Guy, all I will say is this. It is up to Paladin to answer me with the facts Dr Guy as it is his assertion that he can disprove any and all of my "theories".

In fact given the nature of his challenge I can in fact be as hypothetical as I like in this matter. And so yet again you attempt to hand me the wrong end of the stick. Although I suspect more out of ignorance than of cunning.

And I can only hope for Paladins' sake that his "facts" amount to something a little more substantial than your "I believe, he believed" proposition as faith alone will not be enough for him to disprove anything.

i would say that tiddler has lost and is trying to prove that he has won.

This from a guy that claims the Director of the CIA duped the President into war so he could write a book about it. Forgive me while I continue to ignore you.

Lol, I love how half of each reply is just a personal attack. (I guess even my post is, since im making fun of them )

One of the more annoying things about the reporting is that to get the information like the dead terrorist or civilians count, you can only find information about it briefly if at all on tv/radio OR on the web... where of course everyone argues (very maturely) about the actual data. I think it is almost more of a matter of them wanting to "play it safe" and not ruffle any feathers on what they actually report. However, I would like to see more reporting done on information like this instead of randomly finding it on a blog site....

no i didn't claim it. your brother gene did.

Hey Tiddler - keep it up. I'm glad someone here is willing to twist some tails.

And expose the fallacies of some of the pompous fools on this website.

See, you really cant read a thread. You stated it was a lie that Saddam had WMDs, not that it was misinformation. Paladin challenged you to prove it. You have not, now you are trying to say he asked for nothing, and he has to prove his request to you?

Yes, you are a great debater, In the mode of all other fools that think their words must be accepted as god's gospel with no proof.

But this is not your site. So if you really want to earn any respect, prove your assertion. That is what Paladin asked for, and you have yet to do. So dodge and weave and let the slobbering sycophants snuggle up to you. You have proven nothing, except you cant follow a thread, or back up anything you state as a fact.

You might try it, because all tidler is doing is dodging and evading. Or is that what liberals call debate now?

he has a direct challenge he has so far failed to even acknowledge.



Would you care to take up Tidler's dropped challenge? Or are you also a fan of debating by avoiding?

No Dr Troll he didn't. Paladin challenged me to make a claim he couldn't disprove.
Quite a different thing.