IMPROVISATION
IMPROVISATION: This is why we win wars.
Who is that in the picture? Tell us in the Comments
picture: dunno source, via our lol builder. lol caption: Kingpin_098
You May Like:
Show Only: Democrats | Republicans | Media | Military
« Previous Thanks for all that coal, Santa! | WHAT’S NEXT? Next »
» 198 comments
-
Recent Comments
Nucky, the Official … on GOVERNATOR Eddiepscetti on GOVERNATOR shortright the ivani… on WOOPS Nucky, the Official … on WOOPS pittypat on GOVERNATOR Rando the Filthiest,… on WOOPS Nucky, the Official … on GOVERNATOR Nucky, the Official … on WOOPS Eddiepscetti on GOVERNATOR Rando the Filthiest,… on WOOPS 
Cheezburger Network Blog
Hmmmm……I think yer doin it rong.
-
*yawn* I’ve been up too long. I’m off to bed.
I dunno.. Im thinking “America: F*CK YEAH!”
But not to worry, the White House bailout checks cleared.
Won wars? Last war I know the US won was 1776…
No, we totally won the civil war.
tell that to a redneck
The most true phrase ever uttered on this website…
amen
Please, please, PLEASE tell me that was meant to be a joke and you didn’t mean it seriously!
for sure. spain lost theirs, though.
Well, 1/3 of us say we won, 1/3 doesn’t, and all the rest weren’t states at the time.
Sorry for the bad fractions.
you get the award for most logic of all commenters
unfortunatly we have to disqaulify you for use of diet pills
better luck next pic
“You want I should wipe the dead bugs off your windshield?”
Which side do think won each of the World Wars? Just because they get the start date wrong for each war by two years, doesn’t meant they weren’t winners.
I think it would be better to say that the USA was on the winning side, and an important contributor to those wins. Too many British, French and Russian soldiers died for us to say that ‘we’ won the World Wars, as that implies that we won it single-handedly.
technically, based on deaths the nazi forces won by a HUGE ammount. only 18% of deaths in WWII were nazi soldiers/civlians. so really. they won on that front.
That’s only if you count slaughter of civilians including the aged, women and children – an unfortunate side effect of overbombing on one side, a calculated program to assert control over the population on the other.
And then billed everyone for their participation… If they’d admit they were a mercenary force for the war in Europe, then I’d have less issue with them trumpeting their role…
I love that tbh… Pearl harbour. Two years into a WORLD WAR and they are taken completely by surprise. Gratz.
Oh, no no, we *totally* kicked the Iraqi military’s butt. Sure, they were small, starving, undertrained, and unable to defend themselves against a combined arms campaign, but hey, a win is a win!
Also, I’m not sure if we won in 1776, or if the French did, or if the British just got bored and went home. I’m just sayin’.
You’re assuming a military defeat means the war is one. That is pre-21st century war thinking! I guess you agree with Bush’s “Mission Accomplished” banner? Even he regrets that!
A military victory is a victory is a victory. I don’t like to disrespect the risks our military takes to do the job we ask them to do, just because the politicians who send them to fight don’t know what they’re doing.
Also, ROFLMAO: he thinks I’m a Bushie!
He just needs to hang around a little longer
You are truly a man of many contradictions, but they all seem to work well together. *hugs*
Thanks Froo! (hugs a married woman-looks around furtively for an exit if necessary)
I could have sworn some Republican said there was a ‘guard’…
Did the ‘Elite Republican Guard’ ever show up in GW1 or 2?
There’s the War of 1812, the Spanish American War, the Civil War (war between the states for you southern folk), WWI, WWII (these we didn’t really win soley, but were a large part…and we did win the Pacific theater by ourselves), Korea (UN venture, 90%+ of the forces were American), to a point Vietnam, the Cold War (no actual battles, still a war), Desert Storm, and Iraqi Freedom (“War” is technically over, we’re dealing with the aftermath at this point.)
I could list various skirmishes we’ve been involved in as well, but I don’t want to bore you.
Australia had been fighting in the Pacific just as long as the Americans.
WWII in the Pacific was the only time Australia’s borders were threatened, so we did all we could.
.
The British and the Netherlands also had forces in the Pacific protecting their colonial interests.
Let’s see. WWI and WWII. Er, no. The British Empire for starters fielded 5.5 million troops for the first show. WW Redux was achieved largely because of the Soviets.
Korea – nope, draw at best. Vietnam – no, got your arses kicked. As soon as you ran away in your helicopters the North and South joined up and have never looked back.
Desert Storm? Give me a break. American forces actually killed more of their own and ‘allied’ troops than the Iraqis did.
Iraqi ‘Freedom’. You jest. Unwinnable, as is Afghanistan. Lives and money just pissed away.
I’m surprised you haven’t thrown in Grenada and Panama too. Not to mention Serbia. Tell me, when is a war not a war? The US hasn’t declared war since 1941, so how can you win one?
Stop being so American. Most of the Americans in these comments have a far more intelligent approach; you’re just back to the gung-ho bullshit we’re used to seeing from your side of the pond.
Lawl. Okay so the British RAF, French and the rest of the Allies would have won WWII without America’s support? Lawl. Kid, Russia had what, 1m+ Deaths? Oh and don’t get me started on Canada. tbh the blitzakrieg on GB only failed due to Hitler’s ‘mental disorder’ if it weren’t for his crazy intentions and the US GB wouldn’t be existant to date.
im not being a dick, but I dont know of any involvment in WW1? What did u guys do?
Also, thanks for saving our asses (NZ nd AUS) in the pacific theatre Lmao…I would be speaking Japanese right now xD
It depends on where you live. If you live in Brisbane, Adelaide, Hobart or anything in between, you’d probably be fine. Perth is a definite maybe, but Darwin would be doomed. See name for more.
.
As for WWI, they were more morale boosters than anything else. But their number did help when they joined in 1917.
What about the War of 1812? And we HELPED win WWs 1 and 2…
Not so much 1 though.
Falklands, anyone ?
Fester, I didn’t expect a thoroughly detailed knowledge of US history from a British subject, but I had hoped you would at least try to mind your credibility. 10-1 with two undecided isn’t a bad record, you know.
Won:
Revolution
1812
Mexican-American
Civil
Spanish-American
Phillipine-American
WWI
WWII
Korea
Persian Gulf I
Lost:
Vietnam
Undecided:
Iraq
Afghanistan
Yes, I said undecided; final disposition of Iraq is in the hands of the politicians now, not the armed forces. Afghanistan is looking pretty bad but that’s far from over.
1812: draw at best, British Naval blockade was successful.
Korean: I’d say undecided, since North and South are still at war.
Iraq: clearly fail.
1812 and Korea – in both cases, invasions were resisted and the invaders failed to hold any of the territory in dispute.
Starting Iraq was an utter fail. Initial execution wasn’t bad, but the follow-up was atrocious. Now it’ll take a diplomatic miracle to prevail upon the local politicians and retrieve the situation from utter disaster. The military did everything the government asked of it and performed well, but the government was recto-cranially inverted. I put that in the ‘undecided’ column because I still think it’s possible, just barely, to get the Iraqi leadership on the right track…but the military is not the right tool for that job.
recto-cranialy inverted???i was looking for the medical term for my ailment…
i kind of have to agree with slan. our military kicks ass, its a well oiled machine, the problem with us lies in our politicians and people. our politicians make very bad decisions, and our people protest… our military also usually has rules of engagement that limit its ability to get things done. take the muzzle of the american dogs of war and you will see just how nasty they can be.
I think Lyndsey England showed how nasty the American dogs of war can be quite well.
Turns out, her directions came from the White House. Let’s not avoid placing the blame where it needs to be!
As a former MP in the army I can say if Lyndsey England did in fact
receive orders to treat the POW’s like that, it was unlawful and they
should of refused. However as someone who has been to Iraq for 2
deployments. Big whoop. Treating them like college frat boys is nothing.
And don’t tell me some frat didn’t before now stack their pledge’s
naked in a pyramid. It’s a lot more humane then what they do.
Ehm.. I always thought America was the shining beacon of hope and justice, not trying to be nastier than the other guy. I might be mistaken, feel free to correct me.
I correct you. You are very wrong here.
At the risk of invoking Godwin’s law, the guards at Auschwitz and other concentration camps were only following orders as well. A war crime is a war crime and only following orders is no defence. It just means that you need to prosecute the people who issued those orders as well as the ones who carried them out.
EXACTLY. There is a compelling legal argument for the proposition that the Geneva Convention requires us not only to cease all of the so-called “harsh techniques” but to prosecute the people responsible for imposing them. And that responsibility goes straight to the top – Cheney confessed on national television.
We need another Thomas Dodd.
In the words of incoming Attorney General Eric Holder:
“Our government authorized the use of torture, approved of secret electronic surveillance against American citizens, secretly detained American citizens without due process of law, denied the writ of habeas corpus to hundreds of accused enemy combatants and authorized the use of procedures that violate both international law and the United States Constitution…. We owe the American people a reckoning.”
And yet, we’re comparing our new commander in chief to Abraham Lincoln……hmmmmm.
Good point: The War Between the States was EXACTLY like Bush’s war crimes. Quit trolling: I’ve taught you better than this.
I’m only referring to habeas corpus, which was suspended during the Civil War.
Suspension of habeas corpus during a civil war is a far cry from suspension of same in a foreign war.
See where I’m going with this?
I still think that the most productive move along this pursuit of a reckoning would be to begin with squeezing Dr Rumsfeld. I’d also be very interested to hear what Colin Powell might say if asked politely…
I’m torn here, between
…under subpoena
and
…in bed.
…with a penis.
…under subpenis? Hrm.
Well if it’s only a subpenis I’m not sure why you’d bother.
The ones who don’t brag are the most fun, imo.
And the others are hung like crickets.
…and overcompensate with the same amount of clamor.
by playing their legs like violins?!
So the choice here is between sex and violins?
Or have violins in your sex…
Or have sex in your violins–OUCH!
That would burn a bit… Ugh.
Uh… the UN in Korea also invaded North Korea and then failed to hold the territory. There’s no way that can be anything other than a draw.
The war or 1812 was also a draw. No territory was gained or lost on either side. America invaded Canada and was repulsed, British forces attacked America and burnt Washington to the ground, then withdrew after the death of their commander. The origional reasons for starting the war also sorted themselves out with the passage of time, and not as a result of the fighting, so America only achieved it’s aims by default.
Yet the Battle of New Orleans gave the British the worst defeat in their history and they realized that they could never retake the US. A few ground raids against the limp wristed Bostonians and DC’rs wasn’t a battle. And the tiny US navy gave the British a resounding black eye almost everytime they fought.
The battle of New Orleans was fought after the peace treaty had been signed and so had absolutely no effect on the outcome of the war. And the reason American ships tended to win fights against the Royal Navy was they avoided fights that weren’t one-on-one, so they could take full advantage of the fact that their ships, few as they were, carried far more guns than the RN ships.
You can dress it up as a victory all you want, but the simple fact is America started the war, took no new territory and only achieved the objectives for which it justified the war because Britain changed it’s policies due to circumstances which had nothing to do with the war.
Started the war? Maybe you should google “HMS Leopard” before you say that.
Wasn’t that the war where the British was pressing American sailors into working on their ships? Or am I just crazy again?
Okay, I’ve looked at the wiki page for that ship. The incident to which I assume you’re reffering, where an American ship refused to let the Leopard search it for deserters and the Leopard subsequently attacked and overpowered it, happened in 1807, five years before the war of 1812. It’s called the war of 1812 because that’s when the war actually started. Tensions were raised before it started of course, but the opening shots of the actual war were fired by America.
Again, we totally won in Gulf II. It’s just, we didn’t come home after we won, so now we’re trying to referee a civil war.
You defeated a poorly equipped and poorly trained Iraqi military that had incredibly low morale. Big deal. The fact is, two of the stated aims of the war were never realized: finding and removing weapons of mass destruction (there were never any) and bringing freedom and security to the iraqi people.
Please to reference my post above.
Additionally, the object of the *war* is to turn an enemy army into a disorganised rabble; in that, our military succeeded. The political side is where we failed. I didn’t support going into Iraq, but I won’t take away from our military the fact they did their job well.
I agree. It doesn’t matter that our military CLEARLY had the tactical advantage and that made it an unfair fight, we still sent men and women to DIE for POLITICAL reasons. It’s not the military’s fault we ask them to fight. They do as they are told. Or they go to prison.
I meant that in the “defense of our military” way.
Hey, a win is a win is a win, unfair advantage or not. I would rather send our boys and girls in with an unfair advantage than to get involved in a land war in Asia and send them to certain death.
-
Also, you do realize that we don’t have a draft anymore?
No draft, instead the military is largely run on the blood of the poor and otherwise disadvantaged.
Oh, that old saw. that explains why my brother went. gotcha.
No prob.
And me, my brother, two sisters…. Yep,we were poor and disadvantaged…
Thank you for clearing that up…NOT!
I’m gonna go out on a limb and assume charro realizes there is no draft and that the “Or they go to prison” portion of her comment refers to the fact that after you join the military, they go where they send you and you no longer have the right to question them. That’s what I got from it anyway.
I’m sure she knows that we don’t have a draft. But I’m yet to find a person who hasn’t entered the military of his or her own free will, and who doesn’t know somewhere in the back of their mind that they could be, and probably will be, sent to a dangerous place. Whether that’s a war zone is a toss up, but you’re not getting into the military for your health.
Or who thought an order was unconstitutional and knew if they disobeyed it.. they would go to jail.
Hence my statement.
I didn’t even realise you asked this.
Yeah I realise there’s no draft. I just meant you join, we tell you what to do, and as long as you are enlisted you do as you are told or we spank you in Guantanamo. Well not that extreme but, that’s what I imagine.
A soldier has not only the right but the obligation to disobey an illegal order. But in the terms you’re thinking of, the courts have long since determined that an order to deploy is not in itself illegal even if the basis for the military action is.
Don’t disagree with you on any particular point, except the implication that winning an unfair fight is somehow bad. If you have to fight a fair fight with an enemy in a military sense, it just means you didn’t prepare well enough.
I wasn’t trying to imply winning an unfair fight is bad. I was trying to imply it’s not the military’s fault for being sent over there to fight an unfair fight. So the people saying we whalloped the Iraqis unfairly, they shouldn’t blame the military. They should blame the people who sent the super ultra prepared military.
That’s all
Uh… you guys didn’t win the war of 1812. Since the goal was to invade Canada. And that didn’t go so well.
No, the Canadian offensive was strictly to divert British resources – an attempt to strangle the Royal Navy by denying them Canadian food and timber. It was a tactic, not a goal any more than the British really wanted to keep New Orleans.
Can we blame Canada for it, though?
Blame Canada!
They’re not even a real country anyway!
(As a side note some of my best friends are Canadian.)
Canadians always like to believe they won the war of 1812 and that it was only ever about invading Canada. Since they have to deal with the Quebecois on a regular basis I say we let them keep their illusions.
Good point – they’re already paying a penalty, no need to add humiliation.
But… can we still hold on to our illusions? Hate to let them go.
we got into Canada and realized we had enough pine trees and hockey teams and went home
French-Indian War. Chalk that one up under WIN. USA USA USA USA (ad infinitum)
And since we’re including Civil Wars, about 700 rebellions between 1776 and 1790. But this isn’t a history lesson, just wanted to make sure to add them to the Win side (USA again and again and again) to increase the Win % to just about 100. To shut up everybody. Including me.
Ummmm, I hate to break it to you, but the United States didn’t exist during the French-Indian War.
What about the Homo sapiens vs. neanderthalensis war? The US totally pwnd that one.
WOOT!
H. sapienses ROCK!
But those poor darn Neanderthals were poor and disadvantaged….:-(
Nah, some of them obviously mixed with the H. sapienses! I support that statement with the evidence of my grandfather’s XXL skull and strong brow ridge! (OK, a sample of one isn’t scientific…but it’s fun!)
There doesn’t appear to be any mixing between neanderthals and H. Sapiens. Most probably there were crossbreeds, but they were sterile like mules are. There is also no evidence of any kind of massive violence between us and neanderthals. More than likely, we simply out-competed them in hunting and gathering. Seeing as how we tend to fill the same niche, there simply wasn’t enough left over for neanderthals to survive on. /pedant mode OFF
Okay, Mr. Science. But if there *had* been a throw-down, we
woulda totally pwned them, amirite?
*gets out old “H.s.” sweater; notices moth holes*
Random factoid time!
The French weren’t really fighting the Indians. It was England-American Colonies vs French-Indians. The E-AC wanted to remember who they were fighting.
Um, dudes, Vietnam?
Actually, we didn’t lose in Vietnam. We drew a ceasefire. Then we withdrew. And once we were gone, North Vietnam violated the ceasefire, and it was to late.
Not seeing that one coming is epic fail
There is a difference between seeing it coming and risk violating the ceasefire ourselves to be at the ready in case they violate it. If we did stay then they wouldn’t have to violate the cease fire to throw a monkey wrench in because we would have thrown it.
so it was a tie?
More of yet another French-go-in-and-get-their-as***-whipped-and-scream-for-the-Americans-to-bail-them-out-again kind of war and left us with the mess.
You’d think the French would have learned to bring a Corsican with them whenever they partake in military adventures.
My husband went to Japan when he was 19, and he was a strapping young lad at 6′4″ and 200 pounds. Someone rear-ended him, and when he got out of the car, the little Japanese man looked up at him and said, “Well no wonder we lost the war!!”
=P
I lol’d. Both at this and at the pic.
no no no, first he coward and screamed GOZIRRA!!!!!!!
With his lips out of synch with the sound.
I find that’s appropriate whenever I meet new people. Always go for a good first impression, I say.
In bed?
I have lol’d at this and every reponse to this. Thank you for the anecdote.
I have a feeling that if you look really closely at this pic, somewhere you can find the words “ACME Company”.
I’ll have you know that Chuck Jones was inspired to create Wile E. Coyote based entirely on the desert misadventures of my mentally impaired Great-Uncle Irv, who was regularly and tragically injured by Acme Company Products and so that’s just NOT funny….
;o)
*bawls shamelessly into a stained handkerchief*
I’ve seen a similar picture to this before, dude in that one had a pistol instead of a rifle though. Still funny.
You don’t win wars, you tag along at the end to claim some glory. I have one word to prove why you lose: Vietnam (oh yes, the dreaded punji sticks).
And I have proof that chickens don’t lay eggs. This morning I let them out, and none of my 6 hens had laid an egg. Thus, according to your understanding of statistics, no chickens lay eggs. Ever.
*snicker* Not the absolute winner, but utterly, utterly appropriate to the task at hand.
HAHAHAHA american’s winning wars :’)
Neeeeee, wars !
Big cannons!
A-Bomb
AMERICA IS THE BESTEST
This is why we win wars.
Yup, “Mission Accomplished”….
You haven’t won any wars for how many years now?
Let’s ignore Kosovo, because that wasn’t really a war, but 1992 with the end of the Cold War sure seems like a recent win.
The cold war was more of a collapse from within.
Wich our buddy Putin is quickly correcting atm. He already runs the country, now for some millitairy buidup and they are back in bussiness.
People don’t seem to understand what war is. War is when two formal nations declare war on each other and agree to kick each other’s asses. You need two because if only one declares, then the other either will declare, or surrenders.
Therefore, the US wars (and their results) were:
Revolution: Won
Tripolitan/Barbary: Won
1812: Draw
Mexican-American: Won
Civil: Loss*
Spanish-American: Won
WWI: Won
WWII: Won
Gulf: Won
.
Notes:
*Nobody wins in a Civil War. In fact, the North lost more lives and money, and was more destroyed than the South. You could say the RIGHT people won, but still.
The “Phillipine-American War” was an uprising, not a war. After winning SpanAm, we got the Phillipines, but, even though we restored their prosperity and civilization, one radical whackjob wanted it all to himself. So, his growing band of rebels guerilla’d against the US, but were defeated. Somehow, we decided to liberate the Phillipines anyways. Now, they have problems. Good job.
No one ever declared war in either Korea or Vietnam. They were operations.
However, Korea had a cease-fire, as it was a more supported and “formal” war. In both cases, even the enemy admitted that they would have given up if we had fought just a bit longer. Mind you, we were in Vietnam for 21 YEARS. Compare that to Iraq’s 5.
And lastly, Afghanistan and Iraq are not wars either. We are fighting until the terrorist threat is (largely) removed from the Middle East, to put it simply. I guess the tactic is to cut off the head (leaders), and the body (terrorists) will die. If they’re not lead, they have no guidance or experience, and will be easier to take down then before.
.
That is war.
In this case if you cut off the head another will simply sprout up elsewhere.
Again, a pre-21st century definition of war. Everyone has referred to the operations in iraq and afghanistan as “wars”. The defeat of the iraqi military did not indicate the end of the war, rather the start of the asymmetric one, which is still not over.
And that tactic is utter fail. The leaders aren’t so important, heck if they’re removed they’re going into martyrdom and there power is still there. The limbs aren’t drafted soldiers, we’re not dealing with an army there, but they are zealous followers.
I agree with all of you. Surprisingly.
1. Yes, new leaders will always arise, but they won’t be the same figureheads who led the people before. they’re not as popular or known, and will have a harder time getting support. This ideology is even in the minds of the fanatically pious followers.
2. War is not what it used to be. (So screw “War… war never changes.”) We had to defeat the obvious enemy before going for the disguised one. Doing it the other way around is DISATROUS. To put it comically and figuratively: “The giant pile of poo on the lawn is gone, but the smell will take some time.”
3. Since we’re not killing (the majority of) the leaders we catch, they’re not martyred. They’re imprisoned, shamed, and forgotten. And since we’re dealing with “zealous followers,” this tactic is golden. Without the leader they hunger for, who will lead them? A new guy they don’t know? It’s like electing a President without researching their history and political desires (which the majority of voters all over the world do). So, D’oh, I half-agree with you.
You are still thinking in a classic scenario. Cut down the leaders and the rest wil diminish in importance. Many terrorist and their operations work in cells of a few men / women. Often with very rudmentary commands. They will often go ahead and harass the “occupiers” without direct leaders(hip). Also the idea that you are fighting one group is not correct. As we have seen all over the world there are lots of splinter groups active in these kinds of engagements. People who believe they are supported by their God can hold on for a long time.
PewPewPew.
(it had it be said )
Yes it did!
Also, that guy is going to be so cold in flight…. brrrr.
Ouch! He better be careful his nips don’t cut through the duct tape.
Hm… must be a look at the future of the military with the democrats now controlling both houses of Congress and soon to be controlling the presidency.
No, yeah, you’re right. Much better to spend more on our military than the rest of the world combined than to invest some of that money in education, health care, and paying down the national debt. BTW, did you know that the interest on our national debt costs us more than 600 billion dollars every year? Gosh, thanks Republicans!
Yeah, Clinton got a blow job, but he balanced the budget…
Y’know, if my choices are ‘philandering adulterer who balances the budget’ and ‘faithful husband who makes a hash of matters foreign and domestic,’ I’ll be more than happy to overlook a few intern dalliances.
Too bad Clinton wasn’t, in the end, smart enough to see that admitting the affair, whether or not anyone had a *right* to ask if he’d had it, was vastly superior to perjury. The blowjob was no big deal, but the *lying* about it was just stupid.
I wonder what percentages of philanderers admit guilt immediately, upon the first confrontation.
^percentages=percentage
I thought it was the Evil Republicans who were the ones worried about money- not the Liberal Democrats? 0.o ….
The proof is in the pudding, as they say.
He should get extra points if he could balance the budget WHILE getting a blowjob…that takes concentration!
It’s not really relevant to the thread, but I read somewhere that the US spends the same amount on pornography as it does on foreign aid.
I wonder if the US would spend less on porn if Americans as a whole weren’t so sexually repressed.
Constant preoccupation with sex due to lack of constant occupation with sex. We’re depraved on account of we’re deprived!
Yes, yes we are. Very depraved. Wait, deprived. Yes, I am deprived. I need more sex dammit. Or at least people to stop making a fuss over sex so I can have it in peace.
Yes, and that’s not even in the private sector.
In bed.
Wow.
Yeah cause invading under resourced, small, disadvantaged countries for no reason (WMDs what WMDs) the claiming victory is SO totally something to be proud of.
Go America. Picking on the little guy, way to go.
And you did not win Vietnam either and don’t try the Ceasefire excuse, plain and simply your forces couldn’t uproot the Viet Cong so you tried a ceasefire to cover your tracks and not look foolish… didn’t work. All it lead to was you withdrawing and leaving a country and thousands of innocent people suffering. People who are still suffering today from landmines and the side effects of naphalm.
Exactly the same as whats happening in Iraq. I have been to America and seen the news there “America has now lost 4000 troops in the War On Terror” Do any of you know how many INNOCENT IRAQI CIVILIANS have died… do you even have a slight idea and by civilians I mean women, kids, priests, farmers, school teachers, grandparents, people who were living their lives the best they could before being killed for nothing by a self rightous invasion force who claims to be doing good. The estimated number of civilian deaths is between 90,000 and 98,000 people and these are just the deaths reported in the western media.
yes but take in to account that shia and sunni are warring factions. The American military does not kill civilians unless they are shown to be combatants. So well it’s all well and good to blame the everything on the U.S.A. it’s incorrect. Iraq is basically a civil war with the Americans attempting to subdue it and make sure the innocent people do not get hurt. I’ve been to Iraq with the American military. I’ve had my hand shaked and was thanked and offered gifts by the Iraqi civilians. Well the people there are not living a great life yet they are on the way to being a country where they have choices and decisions.
The American military doesn’t kill civilians unless they are within 50 or more metres of where a combatant may or may not be.
oh is that how it is? That explains the whole rules of engagement card stating we must have positive identification before firing. The U.S. Forces don’t shoot people until they shoot at them. That’s why is so difficult in Iraq. When your enemy does not wear a uniform they always get the first shot. Now Air force dropping bombs may accidentlly injure or kill civilians. but not before they have ample warning to leave the location. Again politics dictated that. That’s why in 2004 everyone was given the heads up in Fallujah and why most of the weapon caches were moved before we entered.
Another question to you. Do you think these people are so happy to be free? Under Saddam they had terror, yes of course. But the had food, could move safely at night through their cities ( all is relative of course). In their eyes they have lost that. For a democracy they didn’t ask for. People are basic beings, democracy can wait till we are fed. That is why it is so hard to win the harts and minds of these people.
Estimated civillian casualties are approx 100.000. So that is some lousy shooting.
Give a cite for that number of civilian casualties.
-
And would you be happy with a dictatorship that might or might not whisk you away in the middle of the night for having unhappy thoughts about your lot in life? But I digress.
[LINK]
Again john Iraq is a civil war the u.s. is playing referee. you can’t blame all civilian deaths on u.s.a. and as a fun little bit of info guess what the U.S. does if they wound or injure a civilian they pay reparations. But we’re too evil a military to do something like that. and as far as walking down the street as long as your were not shia, or kurdish or female then yeah you’d be free to walk down the street. link for the repearations http://www.usnews.com/usnews/news/articles/040927/27civilian_3.htm
saddam would see that his chosen people got food. women kurdish and shia were not allowed a fraction of freedom the sunni were. and if you look at my post above the one you replied to Iraq is in a civil war civilian casulties are not because of the U.S. and are in no way a reflection of what the U.S. is attacking we’re basicly playing referee. as google us iraq civilian reparations and see the the fact the u.s. pays when the accidentlly wound or kill someone.
sorry for the double post thought the first one was eaten.
Happens to the best of us, mate.
If you put your link in the box above the box where you enter text, your name will turn blue, indicating that something is linked under it. PK is less likely to delay the post if the link is there, rather than here, for some reason.
[LINK under my name]
oh cool thanks for the tip.
YQW
I’m more thinking of an attack earlier this year on a small town in Afghanistan the the US claimed killed no civilians, but Afghanistan and the UN say killed more than 90 civilians. Several weeks later, the US conceded that they may have it civilians. Click name for some info.
.
This type of incident is not unique, but this is one of the worse examples.
There are winners in war?
This is a new and confusing concept to me…
War doesn’t determine who is right. War determines who is left.
Brilliant.
Hahaha!
Sad but true.
The winner is the one that loses the least.
what the hell is wrong with yuall?!!!
Who the hell is Yuall?
Yule? Or maybe Yul Brenner?
Google tells me that there is a Roger Yuall on Facebook, but I really can’t say what, if anything, is wrong with him.
… Shorthand for You all if I am reading that correctly. If that is the case, ya’ll are lacking the southern street cred to read some of our shorthand.
Hey, if Juan can’t be bothered to spell y’all properly, I think the real question is “What the hell is wrong with Juan?”
Problem with accent since his name is Juan but that might be racial profiling on my part.
Perhaps I read it as it was intended, and then chose to poke fun at it anyway…
Our UAV is online.
I apologize.
And the funny part of this is that you don’t win wars.
It’s the attachment to carpet bombing… only time it worked was Dresden, and that was mostly the RAF. US have tried it in every theatre since, and really, all it does is piss off the local wildlife.
Name the last war you won without dropping a nuclear bomb…
What have they given?
All right, but apart from the sanitation, medicine, education, wine, public order, irrigation, roads, the fresh water system and public health, what have the Romans ever done for us?
Brought peace?
Well, considering that pretty much everything they ever did was lost in that nasty bit called “the Dark Ages,” effectively nothing.
My bad. Many consider Western governments = USA and I thought you were going down a patriotic USA#1!!!!!!!!!!!!! chestbeat route.
I’m thinking Life of Brian quote here…
“Oh, peace – shut up! There is not one of us who would not gladly suffer death to rid this country of the Romans once and for all.”
“Uh, well, one.”
“Oh, yeah, yeah, there’s one. But otherwise, we’re solid. “
From now on, you shall be called “Punkinqueen that is called
Punkinqueen.”
As soon as you enlist. Until then, we treat people the way we wamt OUR troops treated.
Wrap your head around that concept once you’ve pulled it out of your arse, kthxbai.