About Military death rates under George W. Bush. Page 6

Mohmar Deathstrike · May 16th, 2006

Quote:

Originally Posted by Italian Guy

Well TeamInfidel has been an active poster for months from his location in Baghdad.

Yes but was he able to access www.icasualties.org ?

Italian Guy · May 16th, 2006

Don't know.

WarMachine · May 20th, 2006

So that chart says that we're losing more soldiers now than we did under clinton in the same timespan. From what i could tell the deaths under clinton were mostly accidently and non combat, is it a good thing that Bush has soldiers dying in a combat zone? Even with the improved technology they shouldn't have to worry about getting killed if it wasn't for a false pretext to war.

The UN weapons inspectors could have made the same conclusion that the coaltion forces made years after the invasion, there were no WMDs. I guess GW just has to be thorough.

PJ24 · May 21st, 2006

Quote:

Originally Posted by WarMachine

So that chart says that we're losing more soldiers now than we did under clinton in the same timespan. From what i could tell the deaths under clinton were mostly accidently and non combat, is it a good thing that Bush has soldiers dying in a combat zone? Even with the improved technology they shouldn't have to worry about getting killed if it wasn't for a false pretext to war.

The UN weapons inspectors could have made the same conclusion that the coaltion forces made years after the invasion, there were no WMDs. I guess GW just has to be thorough.

Must you interject your agenda in EVERY post? It gets really old.

WarMachine · May 21st, 2006

What agenda? I'm stating my opinion of Bush and this war like the others here. You can argue everyone here has some sort of an agenda, but let's not get paranoid now.

So stick to the subject of the casualties and relate your opinions about that, i don't need to be policed.

PJ24 · May 21st, 2006

Quote:

Originally Posted by WarMachine

What agenda? I'm stating my opinion of Bush and this war like the others here. You can argue everyone here has some sort of an agenda, but let's not get paranoid now.

So stick to the subject of the casualties and relate your opinions about that, i don't need to be policed.

You were the one that wasn't sticking to the subject, using this topic to give another little rant about the validity of the war. Pay attention to what you post, jeez.

RnderSafe · May 21st, 2006

Get back on topic.

May 16th, 2006	#52
Italian Guy	Don't know. "Freedom is the sure possession of those alone who have the courage to defend it". Pericles.

May 20th, 2006	#53
WarMachine	So that chart says that we're losing more soldiers now than we did under clinton in the same timespan. From what i could tell the deaths under clinton were mostly accidently and non combat, is it a good thing that Bush has soldiers dying in a combat zone? Even with the improved technology they shouldn't have to worry about getting killed if it wasn't for a false pretext to war. The UN weapons inspectors could have made the same conclusion that the coaltion forces made years after the invasion, there were no WMDs. I guess GW just has to be thorough. bella! Horrida bella! War! Horrid war! There are no warlike people, just warlike leaders

May 21st, 2006	#55
WarMachine	What agenda? I'm stating my opinion of Bush and this war like the others here. You can argue everyone here has some sort of an agenda, but let's not get paranoid now. So stick to the subject of the casualties and relate your opinions about that, i don't need to be policed.