15 more U.S soldiers killed in helicopter strike
 

http://msnbc.com/news/870749.asp


wow, when will bush pull those guys out of there? It seems to me like atleast 1 is dieing every single day in Iraq. mad:

R.I.P
this sucks

very much so

Re: 15 more U.S soldiers killed in helicopter strike
 

Compared to 30 in Vietnam

i think its more than 1 a day.

this war ws a real mistake. we went over there and just screwed everything up... o well we really cant turn our heads now. its too late. if only we could just pull out now and just pretend this didnt happen...

and they say the war is over stupid:

You have got to be crazy to enlist under the leadership of Bush. Bush is a complete idiot, have you seen him give a speech? It looks like he has to think about every single word he says and then he still fucks up. This man should not be president. Everyone just pray for those poor bastards over in Iraq suffereing from a crapy administrationes decisions.

OH NO HOLY SHIT WE HAVE HAD 200 CASUALTIES OR SO! WE GOTTA PULL OUT! NO MATTER THAT IN WW2 WE TOOK 500,000 CASUALTIES WITHOUT BATTING AN EYE!

WWII and today are very different times.

Technology is amazingly better and you're supposed to be fighting an enemy who is as poor as shit, has no technology whatsoever, has no air force, no navy, no cruise missles, no tanks, nothing. Thats why taking a casualty evry day is suprising to people.

When we fought Germany, they were probably our technological superior. They had just as many troops, tanks. planes. It was basically an even playing ground more or less. Don't tall me that its an even playing ground with the iraqis. You guys are superior to them in every way.

Italy was superior to Ethiopia in everyway, too

Yea also the fact that it was a "WORLD WAR." Right now we are supposedly not even at war anymore. US soldiers are just peace keepers.

Yeah I can see how "peaceful" it is over there.

[quote="Blitz v.666":ad09f]Italy was superior to Ethiopia in everyway, too[/quote:ad09f]

Italy did not want to fight, it was all musalini. The troops were demoralized.

maybe we got the same problem

[quote="Blitz v.666":e0896]Yeah I can see how "peaceful" it is over there.[/quote:e0896]

Thats my point, Americans wonder why their soldiers are getting killed when we are not even at war anymore.

because

a.the media sucks
b.the government sucks
c.our military is on the verge of sucking

Bush is a terrorist and killer himself.

He doens't even give a shit about his people...just his legacy.

ROLFLMAO!!

[quote="Blitz v.666":68455]because

a.the media sucks
b.the government sucks
c.our military is on the verge of sucking[/quote:68455]

why is that? its the most funded militry in the world.

[quote="Sergeant_Scrotum":e38b3][quote="Blitz v.666":e38b3]because

a.the media sucks
b.the government sucks
c.our military is on the verge of sucking[/quote:e38b3]

why is that? its the most funded militry in the world.[/quote:e38b3]

Cause the c&c is a [img]http://homepage.ntlworld.com/gerald.marley/Smilies/tard3.gif[/img] probably.

[quote="Sergeant_Scrotum":9d223][quote="Blitz v.666":9d223]because

a.the media sucks
b.the government sucks
c.our military is on the verge of sucking[/quote:9d223]

why is that? its the most funded militry in the world.[/quote:9d223]
because they are meant to fight, not heard camels.

Yea....Bush is a tard, I never liked him. Hes just finishing what his daddy started is all that I think

We don't hide and wait for someone to drive by and ambush them with some human grenades...

thats not the point, dipshit.

the point is, these are very different wars, and different times. people expect that soldiers lives will be taken care of. And when you lose 1 or 2 or 3 a day to ambushes, it becomes too much. Especially when you were lied to in th first place, right? I think hitler was a much bigger threat than saddam was.

they were both not fit to lead their nation...killing of other people for no real good reason...and thanks for calling me a dipshit, you bitchy twat

Most people dont realize how close hitleer came to winning WW2, thats why i agree with 99 on saddam being a smaller threat

big threat, small threat....still a threat none the less....lets put it this way, if hitler was around today, and tried doing the same thing...he would be considered a small threat

rolleyes:

[img]http://picturencrap.freeservers.com/images/dictators.jpg[/img] offtopic:

tell that to all the Iraqui people he had executed for doing nothing whatsoever. Saddam is a shitheel just like Hitler was. This is what really sets America and Britain apart. People raise thier liberal hands and fuss about everything the government does because they have always lived a life of protectedness. When will you people realize that shit exactly like this is happening all over the world every day. I would bet that you would be singing a different tune if you were an Iraqui man whos father had been executed for some supposed crime.

Maybe...just MAYBE, if people would quit bitching about Iraq and actually back thier country for once, then things would happen a lot differently. The reason why Vietnam went the way it did was because stupid fucking hippies protested the war...for no goddamn reason other than to fit in with a couple of insane, burnt out idealists who would shit on the American flag and all it stands for if it meant someone would buy a $2 ticket to his next rally. Why is it that WW2 vets are thought of as heroes and Vietnam vets are not? Will you people treat the Iraq vets as the heroes they are when its finally over? I will, because they fought and are still fighting for thier country like all the great heroes of the past have.

HOLY FUCK.

All of you are missing the point. My response was to Blitz who was comparing this war to world war 2. I really haven't said one way or the other if this war is good or not, or if I agree with it. I did say that the president mislead you, but that was the only time I eluded to that. All I was doing was comparing the two wars. I know saddam was a fuckhead. In all of my posts I was comparing how today casualties aren't accepted, nor should they be. I didn't really say whether I supported those casualties in order to oust Saddam.

And secondly, its not my country to back. I don't live in the states. but I thought the whole deal was freedom of speech? If, hypethically no one wanted war, why would you not listen to that. Why would everyone shut up and stop talking about it? They wouldn't. But thats a whole nother issue.

I'm done in this thread now. It's gone way offtopic.

finally, a great point made, gg deleto wink:

p.s. whats up long time no see lol rock:

[quote="Dr. Deleto":8c432]Why is it that WW2 vets are thought of as heroes and Vietnam vets are not?[/quote:8c432]

I don't think that's entirely true.....But I think it has to do with the fact that the reason the U.S (and all other Allied nations) fought in WW2 is set in stone......Whereas the reason soldiers fought for their country in Vietnam is a bit more clouded and wishy washy.

IMO - WW2 was the only major war fought where the allies were totally innocent in getting involved.....The only war off the top of my head, of course.

lol thanks. Been spending a lot more time in the *gasp* real world. It is a fabled land of beer and bitches. Hit me up on msn sometime tho. Be good to holler at ya.

btw ninty9, I think youve said before that you were british, and I pointed out britain as being the same way. And yes I saw where you were going with your posts, I was replying more to the general public than you solely, I just used your point of them being different wars as a basis for my post.

I personally think that the Iraq war and WW2 are quite similar, considering we rousted a mad dictator who was commiting genocide on a part of his country's population and threatening the well being of neighboring countries. Hitler just did it on a much larger scale. Who knows, in ten years Saddam could have allied with another country in the region and started the same scale conflict that Hitler did. In effect our actions made sure that never happened.

WW2 are thought of heroes because they are dieing left and right these days. In about 20 years we'll start seeing the vets from 'nam being shown as heroes.

[quote=Tripper]I don't think that's entirely true.....But I think it has to do with the fact that the reason the U.S (and all other Allied nations) fought in WW2 is set in stone......Whereas the reason soldiers fought for their country in Vietnam is a bit more clouded and wishy washy.

IMO - WW2 was the only major war fought where the allies were totally innocent in getting involved.....The only war off the top of my head, of course.[/quote:08189]

excellent point. I agree with that myself, but I think it was more the soldiers were fighting for the same reasons as they did in WW2, but the conflict itself was cloudy in its purpose. The soldiers deserve the same respect no matter what, since they are fighting for thier country. I think that a country should back a war just for the simple basis that the soldiers themselves need that backing to thrive and succeed. Good point made though.

[quote="Dr. Deleto":1a415][quote=Tripper]I don't think that's entirely true.....But I think it has to do with the fact that the reason the U.S (and all other Allied nations) fought in WW2 is set in stone......Whereas the reason soldiers fought for their country in Vietnam is a bit more clouded and wishy washy.

IMO - WW2 was the only major war fought where the allies were totally innocent in getting involved.....The only war off the top of my head, of course.[/quote:1a415]

excellent point. I agree with that myself, but I think it was more the soldiers were fighting for the same reasons as they did in WW2, but the conflict itself was cloudy in its purpose. The soldiers deserve the same respect no matter what, since they are fighting for thier country. I think that a country should back a war just for the simple basis that the soldiers themselves need that backing to thrive and succeed. Good point made though.[/quote:1a415]

Yeah, I agree......

Many of you forget to many of the Iraqis believe the Americans are there as occupiers, not liberators and this of course would mean resistance. Also the resistance are gaining lots of media coverage which is good for them and bad for the coalition. Its not who has the strong army, its the willingness to fight. A lesson learnt from Vietnam.

And Who said it will ever be easy to rebuild a new Iraq? Invading Iraq was easy but building a new regime will be hard as already seen. Easy come easy go.

Time will tell, I think it'll be best to hand over all authority back to the Iraqis as soon as possible to give the right impression because everyone is thinking the US is there to control the Oil and that will just make the Iraqis fight harder.

Well, now you make me reply once again.

There is a Calgary in Britain, however that is not the Calgary I live in. I never said I was from Britain, because i'm not.

The location bar that says: Calgary, Alberta and the maple leaf in my avatar I thought made it pretty clear.