[MariaBeautys]

Originally posted by MOBIUS
Currently it is ranked 8th in terms of soldiers killed, out of 12 'wars' the US has fought, just recently surpassing the numbers killed in the Spanish-American War after surpassing the 1812 War a while back... I think you may have them two the wrong way around. I can't be sure though.

[ensuppono]

I find it difficult to believe that Iraq has as many casualties as the Napoleonic era bloodbaths of the war of 1812.

[goolen4you]

We need this smilie:

:1-trick-pony:

[HaroldMY]

[PolPitasc]

I'm not cool.

[durootrium]

Originally posted by Seeker
I find it difficult to believe that Iraq has as many casualties as the Napoleonic era bloodbaths of the war of 1812. Well, believe it. Frankly I was surprised too, but then that merely supports what a fiasco this war in Iraq has proven to be...

The next milestone is the Revolutionary War itself at 4,435.

With the current US death toll standing at 2,633 that isn't looking that far away. Just over two years at today's rate of casualties...

[SantaClaus]

The Iraq war wasn't started because of WMD but because of regime change. The current situation in Iraq would have started ANY MOMENT after Sadam would've been gone. Sooner or later.

Regime change was the reason for GWB to start the Iraq war. And the possible future collaboration between Iraq and terrorists.

WMD was the reason for Blair and most other allies of GWB. And only if the existance of WMD could be proven France, Germany and Russia would have participated since they were only interested in protecting themselves and didn't care about a people far away from their voters.

[ireleda]

Originally posted by Seeker
I find it difficult to believe that Iraq has as many casualties as the Napoleonic era bloodbaths of the war of 1812.
I didn't think that there were that many AMERICAN casualties in the War of 1812.

[goolen4you]

Originally posted by Seeker
I find it difficult to believe that Iraq has as many casualties as the Napoleonic era bloodbaths of the war of 1812. There wasn't much actual fighting in the war of 1812. At least not by the poofter Brits. The whole burning Washington thing was grossly overrated, and if HMS Shannon hadn't defeated USS Chesapeake, what would the Brits have had to show for it? It's a good thing for them they spent most of their time fighting the French.

[hacyOrgachbic]

Originally posted by MOBIUS
I'm surrounded by MtG's... Sorry honey, no matter how hard you try, you still can't be my b i t c h.

[km2000]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
Uhm, Mike, where did you find that quote? His location field.

[cargo_brad]

Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat
There wasn't much actual fighting in the war of 1812. At least not by the poofter Brits. The whole burning Washington thing was grossly overrated, and if HMS Shannon hadn't defeated USS Chesapeake, what would the Brits have had to show for it? It's a good thing for them they spent most of their time fighting the French. Yep, amidst MtG's BS lies the truth - the USA only exists because of the continued intervention of the French during the 18th and 19th centuries.

Must be really humiliating to know you owe your country to 'a bunch of cheese eating surrender-monkeys'...

Either way, it is still significant that more soldiers have died in Iraq, than during a co-ordinated (albeit poorly) attack on the US mainland.

Originally posted by Commie Guevara
Uhm, Mike, where did you find that quote? He knows damned well - I changed the 'idiots' part to 'MtGs' after I forced him to eat humble pie (again!) in a thread and he spat his dummy out and launched into a particularly entertaining stream to personal insults...

Needless to say, plenty of other posters noted his blatant hypocrisy as a Mod/ex Mod whatever, without my even having to prompt them. Truly not one of his most glorious moments, and something I shall remind him of whenever he feels the need to bring it up.

[Onervemurce]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
Originally posted by CyberShy
The Iraq war wasn't started because of WMD but because of regime change. The current situation in Iraq would have started ANY MOMENT after Sadam would've been gone. Sooner or later.

Wrong, cuz the Ba'athist state would have continued to exist, even if the generals whacked Husseins sadistic sons. It wasn't toppling Saddam that made the situation in Iraq, it was destroying the state. It was like unlocking a pressure cooker with a full head of steam, rather than letting it bleed off first. Just another example of the colossal incompetence of this administration. You think that the Ba'athists, a hated minority, would be able to rule Iraq forever? Ok, even if it would continue a little longer, like North Korea didn't end with the death of Kim Il Sun, one day it would collapse and this war would have started.

Most, if not all, free nations have earned this freedom through war. Unfortunately.

[FourEsters]

Mobius sucks. That's just established fact. Move on.

[Paiblyelaxy]

Point well-made.

[Neitteloxesia]

It's not cool to belittle the sacrifices of any of our soldiers, regardless of the war. What about the soldiers of other countries, or any other soldiers throughout history? Is it "not cool" to belittle the sacrifices of soldiers who died in the Pelloponesian war?