Has the US run out of troops?

Originally posted by Aleph > Originally posted by The Man Up North> SirChunks -- you were speaking about GUNS -- I wonder: did you ever shoot at someone? Did you ever KILL someone ?

Maybe utilized some "smart" bombs....

Only a 75% civillian casualty rate, compaired to last year's 85%

Negative shipmate. Have not utilized smart bombs [personally] but have been part of a smart bomb (JDAM) mission...and I got to see this live from afar via recce cams and I can tell you that we had 0% civilian casualties-100% bad guys.

Sometimes in conflict or war, casualties must occur, sadly, to finish the damn thing! It sucks, but get over it!! And 75% is reaching a bit far in the overall stats. Sure, if you bomb a loaded public building that happens to contain offices or centers with bad guys in them, yeah you get casualties reaching that high. But hey...no one complains about Chemotherapy!!!!!

Funny, no one ever bitched about the casualty figures in WWII. Why should WWIII be any different? Oh...I know, society has become a bunch of limp dick, afraid of the sight of their own blood, sensitive fairies!!!

Originally posted by Michael McDermott > Originally posted by 404 error> > > > Originally posted by Michael McDermott> > > > > > > Originally posted by Digital Mike Binoche> > > Bush - International Terrorist> > >

Koffi Annan, TotalElfFina et al + oil, money, food and medicine stolen from Iraqi civilians = blood on their hands.

Its quite possible to dislike both Bush AND the UN.

(The UN's failure to restrain the US from unilaterally attacking Iraq graphically demonstrated its uselessness, I think)

How, exactly, do you define unilateral?

Unilateral = the US invading Iraq with the support of almost nobody apart from Tony Blair (not the rest of Britain, note). Anyway, I'm not one of those who opposes the war while making a fetish of 'international law' and the UN, the invasion was a bad idea on its own merits, and I've never reckoned much to the UN (nor to Chirac, who clearly opposed the war for reasons as dubious as Blair's for supporting it).