| Topic: |
Politics > Politics-USA |
| User: |
"Harry Hope" |
| Date: |
01 Dec 2003 07:57:01 AM |
| Object: |
"We don't do body counts" Huh? |
From The Boston Globe, 11/14/03:
http://www.boston.com/news/globe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2003/11/14/us_stays_blind_to_iraqi_casualties/
The mantra of the military from Tommy Franks down to his spokespeople
was, "We don't do body counts."
The most bald-faced expansion on that policy was given in April by
Brigadier General Vincent Brooks of Central Command.
"In all cases, we inflict a considerable amount of destruction on
whatever force comes into contact with us," Brooks said.
"It just is not worth trying to characterize by numbers. Frankly, if
we are going to be honorable by the warfare, we are not out there
trying to count up bodies."
............................................................................................
From The Associated Press, 12/1/03:
http://www.newsday.com/news/nationworld/wire/sns-ap-newsbrief,0,1411218.story?coll=sns-ap-nationworld-headlines
U.S.: 54 Iraqi Fighters Killed in Battle
SAMARRA, Iraq (AP) --
The U.S. military said 54 Iraqis were killed in the northern city of
Samarra as U.S. forces used tanks and cannons to fight their way out
of simultaneous ambushes while delivering new Iraqi currency to banks.
But residents said Monday that the casualty figure was much lower and
that the dead were mostly civilians.
___________________________________________________________
Harry
.
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: "We don't do body counts" Huh? |
01 Dec 2003 03:09:01 PM |
|
|
Hary; It's a war, sonny. We don't need some little two bit Pontiff like you
to preach your perception of morality to us. Go pray to your living God,
Silly Willy Clinton, bring him a few women.
I hope they bring back body counts, you little phoney.
"Harry Hope" <rivrvu@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
news:25imsv8l638codgeq0bq8jts3fr2u5kjok@4ax.com...
From The Boston Globe, 11/14/03:
http://www.boston.com/news/globe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2003/11/14/
us_stays_blind_to_iraqi_casualties/
The mantra of the military from Tommy Franks down to his spokespeople
was, "We don't do body counts."
The most bald-faced expansion on that policy was given in April by
Brigadier General Vincent Brooks of Central Command.
"In all cases, we inflict a considerable amount of destruction on
whatever force comes into contact with us," Brooks said.
"It just is not worth trying to characterize by numbers. Frankly, if
we are going to be honorable by the warfare, we are not out there
trying to count up bodies."
.............................................................................
................
From The Associated Press, 12/1/03:
http://www.newsday.com/news/nationworld/wire/sns-ap-newsbrief,0,1411218.stor
y?coll=sns-ap-nationworld-headlines
U.S.: 54 Iraqi Fighters Killed in Battle
SAMARRA, Iraq (AP) --
The U.S. military said 54 Iraqis were killed in the northern city of
Samarra as U.S. forces used tanks and cannons to fight their way out
of simultaneous ambushes while delivering new Iraqi currency to banks.
But residents said Monday that the casualty figure was much lower and
that the dead were mostly civilians.
___________________________________________________________
Harry
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Rico" |
|
| Title: Re: "We don't do body counts" Huh? |
01 Dec 2003 10:30:12 AM |
|
|
In article <25imsv8l638codgeq0bq8jts3fr2u5kjok@4ax.com>, Harry Hope <rivrvu@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
From The Boston Globe, 11/14/03:
http://www.boston.com/news/globe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2003/11/14/us_
stays_blind_to_iraqi_casualties/
The mantra of the military from Tommy Franks down to his spokespeople
was, "We don't do body counts."
The most bald-faced expansion on that policy was given in April by
Brigadier General Vincent Brooks of Central Command.
"In all cases, we inflict a considerable amount of destruction on
whatever force comes into contact with us," Brooks said.
"It just is not worth trying to characterize by numbers. Frankly, if
we are going to be honorable by the warfare, we are not out there
trying to count up bodies."
...............................................................................
.............
From The Associated Press, 12/1/03:
http://www.newsday.com/news/nationworld/wire/sns-ap-newsbrief,0,1411218.story?c
oll=sns-ap-nationworld-headlines
U.S.: 54 Iraqi Fighters Killed in Battle
SAMARRA, Iraq (AP) --
The U.S. military said 54 Iraqis were killed in the northern city of
Samarra as U.S. forces used tanks and cannons to fight their way out
of simultaneous ambushes while delivering new Iraqi currency to banks.
But residents said Monday that the casualty figure was much lower and
that the dead were mostly civilians.
___________________________________________________________
Harry
I was struck by the body counts released over the weekend as well. First
good for our kids in beating/surpising the ambushers but I was reminded of
the press releases in the late 1960's and early 1970's by the military. The
fact that the locals are saying the count of combatants is infalted also
reminds me of those days. Is the military now out to create a credability
gap just like in 'Nam?
Funny how this thing in Iraq keeps looking more and more like SE Asia.
.
|
|
|
| User: "AAAAAAAA XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXNo longer subscribing sean michaelson ron michael bill tisken kim nunn jack snyder david uva ana brown tim kendall judy gligg tanya smith" |
|
| Title: Re: "We don't do body counts" Huh? |
01 Dec 2003 10:37:03 AM |
|
|
Rico <rico_001@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:vsmr4nl27h19dc@corp.supernews.com...
In article <25imsv8l638codgeq0bq8jts3fr2u5kjok@4ax.com>, Harry Hope
<rivrvu@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
From The Boston Globe, 11/14/03:
http://www.boston.com/news/globe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2003/11/14
/us_
stays_blind_to_iraqi_casualties/
The mantra of the military from Tommy Franks down to his spokespeople
was, "We don't do body counts."
The most bald-faced expansion on that policy was given in April by
Brigadier General Vincent Brooks of Central Command.
"In all cases, we inflict a considerable amount of destruction on
whatever force comes into contact with us," Brooks said.
"It just is not worth trying to characterize by numbers. Frankly, if
we are going to be honorable by the warfare, we are not out there
trying to count up bodies."
0241
From The Associated Press, 12/1/03:
http://www.newsday.com/news/nationworld/wire/sns-ap-newsbrief,0,1411218.sto
ry?c
oll=sns-ap-nationworld-headlines
U.S.: 54 Iraqi Fighters Killed in Battle
SAMARRA, Iraq (AP) --
The U.S. military said 54 Iraqis were killed in the northern city of
Samarra as U.S. forces used tanks and cannons to fight their way out
of simultaneous ambushes while delivering new Iraqi currency to banks.
But residents said Monday that the casualty figure was much lower and
that the dead were mostly civilians.
___________________________________________________________
Harry
I was struck by the body counts released over the weekend as well. First
good for our kids in beating/surpising the ambushers but I was reminded
of
the press releases in the late 1960's and early 1970's by the military.
The
fact that the locals are saying the count of combatants is infalted also
reminds me of those days. Is the military now out to create a credability
gap just like in 'Nam?
Funny how this thing in Iraq keeps looking more and more like SE Asia.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "George W Bush" |
|
| Title: Re: "We don't do body counts" Huh? |
05 Dec 2003 04:54:14 AM |
|
|
On Mon, 01 Dec 2003 13:57:01 GMT, Harry Hope <rivrvu@ix.netcom.com>
wrote:
The mantra of the military from Tommy Franks down to his spokespeople
was, "We don't do body counts."
The most bald-faced expansion on that policy was given in April by
Brigadier General Vincent Brooks of Central Command.
"In all cases, we inflict a considerable amount of destruction on
whatever force comes into contact with us," Brooks said.
"It just is not worth trying to characterize by numbers. Frankly, if
we are going to be honorable by the warfare, we are not out there
trying to count up bodies."
Really so for the revenge of 9/11, 3000 roughly Americans dies you
get 13,000 Iraqi civilians dead who had nothing to do with 9/11
Hmm seems that most of the Hijackes were from Saudi Arabia no Iraq.
I wish that Central Command would explain their policy to the
relatives of these dead Iraqi civilians and see how much they're
perceived to be their Liberators
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "DDB" |
|
| Title: Re: "We don't do body counts" Huh? |
01 Dec 2003 08:38:46 AM |
|
|
You gotta love this bot *****, every time there is another dead US
soldier, this thing is the first to boast about it. Now let there be good
news for our troops and the Bot ***** criticizes the act of reporting that
news. It's pretty clear which side Harry is cheering for and it's not
America. More proof of liberal bias against US forces.
"Harry Hope" <rivrvu@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
news:25imsv8l638codgeq0bq8jts3fr2u5kjok@4ax.com...
From The Boston Globe, 11/14/03:
http://www.boston.com/news/globe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2003/11/14/us_stays_blind_to_iraqi_casualties/
The mantra of the military from Tommy Franks down to his spokespeople
was, "We don't do body counts."
The most bald-faced expansion on that policy was given in April by
Brigadier General Vincent Brooks of Central Command.
"In all cases, we inflict a considerable amount of destruction on
whatever force comes into contact with us," Brooks said.
"It just is not worth trying to characterize by numbers. Frankly, if
we are going to be honorable by the warfare, we are not out there
trying to count up bodies."
.............................................................................
................
From The Associated Press, 12/1/03:
http://www.newsday.com/news/nationworld/wire/sns-ap-newsbrief,0,1411218.story?coll=sns-ap-nationworld-headlines
U.S.: 54 Iraqi Fighters Killed in Battle
SAMARRA, Iraq (AP) --
The U.S. military said 54 Iraqis were killed in the northern city of
Samarra as U.S. forces used tanks and cannons to fight their way out
of simultaneous ambushes while delivering new Iraqi currency to banks.
But residents said Monday that the casualty figure was much lower and
that the dead were mostly civilians.
___________________________________________________________
Harry
.
|
|
|
| User: "qwerty" |
|
| Title: Re: "We don't do body counts" Huh? |
01 Dec 2003 10:14:32 AM |
|
|
"DDB" <IHatNoOne@Fakecomcast.net> wrote in message
news:jbCdnXj2f5dBzlaiRVn-sA@comcast.com...
You gotta love this bot *****, every time there is another dead US
soldier, this thing is the first to boast about it. Now let there be good
news for our troops and the Bot ***** criticizes the act of reporting
that
news. It's pretty clear which side Harry is cheering for and it's not
America. More proof of liberal bias against US forces.
I bet you liked this part and isn't a good sign for the U.S. occupation:
"Many residents said Saddam loyalists attacked the Americans, but that when
U.S. forces began firing at random, many civilians got their guns and joined
the fight. Many said residents were bitter about recent U.S. raids in the
night. "
""Why do they arrest people when they're in their homes?" asked Athir Abdul
Salam, a 19-year-old student. "They come at night to arrest people. So what
do they expect those people to do?" "
""Civilians shot back at the Americans," said 30-year-old Ali Hassan, who
was wounded by shrapnel in the battle. "They claim we are terrorists. So OK,
we are terrorists. What do they expect when they drive among us?" "
"Many residents said the Americans opened fire at random when they came
under attack, and targeted civilian installations. Six destroyed vehicles
sat in front of the hospital, where witnesses said U.S. tanks shelled people
dropping off the injured. A kindergarten was damaged, apparently by tank
shells. No children were hurt. "
sfgate.com/article.cgi?file=/news/a/2003/12/01/international0612EST0463.DTL
.
|
|
|
| User: "Rico" |
|
| Title: Re: "We don't do body counts" Huh? |
01 Dec 2003 10:35:45 AM |
|
|
In article <INJyb.28601$P77.14224@newssvr29.news.prodigy.com>, "qwerty" <nospam@all.noway.com> wrote:
"DDB" <IHatNoOne@Fakecomcast.net> wrote in message
news:jbCdnXj2f5dBzlaiRVn-sA@comcast.com...
You gotta love this bot *****, every time there is another dead US
soldier, this thing is the first to boast about it. Now let there be good
news for our troops and the Bot ***** criticizes the act of reporting
that
news. It's pretty clear which side Harry is cheering for and it's not
America. More proof of liberal bias against US forces.
I bet you liked this part and isn't a good sign for the U.S. occupation:
"Many residents said Saddam loyalists attacked the Americans, but that when
U.S. forces began firing at random, many civilians got their guns and joined
the fight. Many said residents were bitter about recent U.S. raids in the
night. "
""Why do they arrest people when they're in their homes?" asked Athir Abdul
Salam, a 19-year-old student. "They come at night to arrest people. So what
do they expect those people to do?" "
""Civilians shot back at the Americans," said 30-year-old Ali Hassan, who
was wounded by shrapnel in the battle. "They claim we are terrorists. So OK,
we are terrorists. What do they expect when they drive among us?" "
"Many residents said the Americans opened fire at random when they came
under attack, and targeted civilian installations. Six destroyed vehicles
sat in front of the hospital, where witnesses said U.S. tanks shelled people
dropping off the injured. A kindergarten was damaged, apparently by tank
shells. No children were hurt. "
sfgate.com/article.cgi?file=/news/a/2003/12/01/international0612EST0463.DTL
Truth is in a fire fight that sort of thing is bound to happen. While I
want our troops out, meantime, I would prefer one of our kids shooting in
the wrong direction in error then risk coming home in a box because he or
she hesitated to squeeze off a few rounds. Clearly not the way to win the
hearts and minds of the locals, but in my book our kids coming home alive
and in one piece is preferred.
.
|
|
|
| User: "qwerty" |
|
| Title: Re: "We don't do body counts" Huh? |
01 Dec 2003 02:14:23 PM |
|
|
"Rico" <rico_001@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:vsmrf3t2oukm25@corp.supernews.com...
In article <INJyb.28601$P77.14224@newssvr29.news.prodigy.com>, "qwerty"
<nospam@all.noway.com> wrote:
"DDB" <IHatNoOne@Fakecomcast.net> wrote in message
news:jbCdnXj2f5dBzlaiRVn-sA@comcast.com...
You gotta love this bot *****, every time there is another dead US
soldier, this thing is the first to boast about it. Now let there be
good
news for our troops and the Bot ***** criticizes the act of reporting
that
news. It's pretty clear which side Harry is cheering for and it's not
America. More proof of liberal bias against US forces.
I bet you liked this part and isn't a good sign for the U.S. occupation:
"Many residents said Saddam loyalists attacked the Americans, but that
when
U.S. forces began firing at random, many civilians got their guns and
joined
the fight. Many said residents were bitter about recent U.S. raids in the
night. "
""Why do they arrest people when they're in their homes?" asked Athir
Abdul
Salam, a 19-year-old student. "They come at night to arrest people. So
what
do they expect those people to do?" "
""Civilians shot back at the Americans," said 30-year-old Ali Hassan, who
was wounded by shrapnel in the battle. "They claim we are terrorists. So
OK,
we are terrorists. What do they expect when they drive among us?" "
"Many residents said the Americans opened fire at random when they came
under attack, and targeted civilian installations. Six destroyed vehicles
sat in front of the hospital, where witnesses said U.S. tanks shelled
people
dropping off the injured. A kindergarten was damaged, apparently by tank
shells. No children were hurt. "
sfgate.com/article.cgi?file=/news/a/2003/12/01/international0612EST0463.DTL
Truth is in a fire fight that sort of thing is bound to happen.
The point I was trying to make was that as soon as the firing started,
civilians picked up their weapons and joined in fighting the U.S. troops.
That means that the U.S. is apparently losing the battle for the "hearts &
minds" of the Iraqi people and stoking their hatred of the U.S. occupation.
This doesn't forebode very well on the occupation nor for eventually having
a Iraq that's friendly to the U.S...
While I
want our troops out, meantime, I would prefer one of our kids shooting in
the wrong direction in error then risk coming home in a box because he or
she hesitated to squeeze off a few rounds. Clearly not the way to win the
hearts and minds of the locals, but in my book our kids coming home alive
and in one piece is preferred.
I thought the whole purpose of having to those troops over there was to
bring about an democratically elected Iraqi government that's both peaceful
and friendly to the U.S.? How is killing locals and really pissing off the
Iraqi people going to accomplish that? Those soldiers maybe coming home in
one piece, but my indiscriminately killing civilians it means losing the
peace and eventually someone else is going to have to go over there and
clean up the subsequent mess. Which most likely will lead to an even
greater U.S. AND Iraqi civilian death count. Are you hoping that the U.S.
will have to have troops fighting there for years, if not decades? Don't
you think it might be better if the U.S. troops were more discriminating in
firing and picking their targets so as to prevent even more Iraqi's from
hating the U.S.?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Rico" |
|
| Title: Re: "We don't do body counts" Huh? |
02 Dec 2003 07:28:25 AM |
|
|
In article <ziNyb.28673$yE2.19835@newssvr29.news.prodigy.com>, "qwerty" <nospam@all.noway.com> wrote:
"Rico" <rico_001@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:vsmrf3t2oukm25@corp.supernews.com...
In article <INJyb.28601$P77.14224@newssvr29.news.prodigy.com>, "qwerty"
<nospam@all.noway.com> wrote:
"DDB" <IHatNoOne@Fakecomcast.net> wrote in message
news:jbCdnXj2f5dBzlaiRVn-sA@comcast.com...
You gotta love this bot *****, every time there is another dead US
soldier, this thing is the first to boast about it. Now let there be
good
news for our troops and the Bot ***** criticizes the act of reporting
that
news. It's pretty clear which side Harry is cheering for and it's not
America. More proof of liberal bias against US forces.
I bet you liked this part and isn't a good sign for the U.S. occupation:
"Many residents said Saddam loyalists attacked the Americans, but that
when
U.S. forces began firing at random, many civilians got their guns and
joined
the fight. Many said residents were bitter about recent U.S. raids in the
night. "
""Why do they arrest people when they're in their homes?" asked Athir
Abdul
Salam, a 19-year-old student. "They come at night to arrest people. So
what
do they expect those people to do?" "
""Civilians shot back at the Americans," said 30-year-old Ali Hassan, who
was wounded by shrapnel in the battle. "They claim we are terrorists. So
OK,
we are terrorists. What do they expect when they drive among us?" "
"Many residents said the Americans opened fire at random when they came
under attack, and targeted civilian installations. Six destroyed vehicles
sat in front of the hospital, where witnesses said U.S. tanks shelled
people
dropping off the injured. A kindergarten was damaged, apparently by tank
shells. No children were hurt. "
sfgate.com/article.cgi?file=/news/a/2003/12/01/international0612EST0463.DTL
Truth is in a fire fight that sort of thing is bound to happen.
The point I was trying to make was that as soon as the firing started,
civilians picked up their weapons and joined in fighting the U.S. troops.
That means that the U.S. is apparently losing the battle for the "hearts &
minds" of the Iraqi people and stoking their hatred of the U.S. occupation.
This doesn't forebode very well on the occupation nor for eventually having
a Iraq that's friendly to the U.S...
Don't misunderstand, I have never thought the occupation would work. Why
would Americans tolerate a foreign army on our own soil. All the gun nuts
always shout about defending America, yet somehow they seem to think other
peoples feel differently about their homeland, I just remain amazed at this
attitude...
While I
want our troops out, meantime, I would prefer one of our kids shooting in
the wrong direction in error then risk coming home in a box because he or
she hesitated to squeeze off a few rounds. Clearly not the way to win the
hearts and minds of the locals, but in my book our kids coming home alive
and in one piece is preferred.
I thought the whole purpose of having to those troops over there was to
bring about an democratically elected Iraqi government that's both peaceful
and friendly to the U.S.?
Well you thought wrong, this was an attempt (not well thought out) to keep
Bush's poll numbers up. Also tossing some cash to major GOP contributors
was also a side motive. The rest of the excuses are just to distract the
public.
How is killing locals and really pissing off the
Iraqi people going to accomplish that? Those soldiers maybe coming home in
one piece, but my indiscriminately killing civilians it means losing the
peace and eventually someone else is going to have to go over there and
clean up the subsequent mess. Which most likely will lead to an even
greater U.S. AND Iraqi civilian death count. Are you hoping that the U.S.
will have to have troops fighting there for years, if not decades? Don't
you think it might be better if the U.S. troops were more discriminating in
firing and picking their targets so as to prevent even more Iraqi's from
hating the U.S.?
The peace was lost the day GW invaded Iraq without first building a real
coalition like his daddy did in 1990. This whole thing was lost when bush
lite proved he and his administration are total failures at negotiation
with our allied governments. Once bush et al started looking for ways
around the UN the peace and ulitimately the war in Iraq was lost.
At this point my only concern is get the kids out alive and with as minimal
a cost as possible. The US cannot win in Iraq at this point, it is only a
question of how long it takes the rest of the public to reach this
understanding.
.
|
|
|
| User: "George W Bush" |
|
| Title: Re: "We don't do body counts" Huh? |
05 Dec 2003 05:06:02 AM |
|
|
On Tue, 02 Dec 2003 13:28:25 GMT, (Rico) wrote:
The peace was lost the day GW invaded Iraq without first building a real
coalition like his daddy did in 1990. This whole thing was lost when bush
lite proved he and his administration are total failures at negotiation
with our allied governments. Once bush et al started looking for ways
around the UN the peace and ulitimately the war in Iraq was lost.
At this point my only concern is get the kids out alive and with as minimal
a cost as possible. The US cannot win in Iraq at this point, it is only a
question of how long it takes the rest of the public to reach this
understanding.
The problem it's too late to go back, not even the UN wants to clean
up the mess Bush has started no matter how much power Bush would
concede to the UN.
This mess that Bush started isn't going to happened like you order a
pizza, presto Instant Gratification.
Installing a real democracy in a place like Iraq can take a minimum of
10 years to really work and take off and even then it can be a fragile
thing.
Surveys and studies have been done on this by the UN and other
International Organizations on promoting democracies.
You just don't go and bomb a country and have no plans for the
aftermath and expect a democracy to emerge like ordering a big mac and
Macdonals. It doesn't work like that.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "George W Bush" |
|
| Title: Re: "We don't do body counts" Huh? |
05 Dec 2003 04:56:37 AM |
|
|
On Mon, 01 Dec 2003 16:14:32 GMT, "qwerty" <nospam@all.noway.com>
wrote:
"DDB" <IHatNoOne@Fakecomcast.net> wrote in message
news:jbCdnXj2f5dBzlaiRVn-sA@comcast.com...
You gotta love this bot *****, every time there is another dead US
soldier, this thing is the first to boast about it. Now let there be good
news for our troops and the Bot ***** criticizes the act of reporting
that
news. It's pretty clear which side Harry is cheering for and it's not
America. More proof of liberal bias against US forces.
I bet you liked this part and isn't a good sign for the U.S. occupation:
"Many residents said Saddam loyalists attacked the Americans, but that when
U.S. forces began firing at random, many civilians got their guns and joined
the fight. Many said residents were bitter about recent U.S. raids in the
night. "
""Why do they arrest people when they're in their homes?" asked Athir Abdul
Salam, a 19-year-old student. "They come at night to arrest people. So what
do they expect those people to do?" "
""Civilians shot back at the Americans," said 30-year-old Ali Hassan, who
was wounded by shrapnel in the battle. "They claim we are terrorists. So OK,
we are terrorists. What do they expect when they drive among us?" "
"Many residents said the Americans opened fire at random when they came
under attack, and targeted civilian installations. Six destroyed vehicles
sat in front of the hospital, where witnesses said U.S. tanks shelled people
dropping off the injured. A kindergarten was damaged, apparently by tank
shells. No children were hurt. "
sfgate.com/article.cgi?file=/news/a/2003/12/01/international0612EST0463.DTL
So this is how you win the hearts and minds of Iraqis being liberated
if they're still alive to enjoy it.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Tempest" |
|
| Title: Re: "We don't do body counts" Huh? |
01 Dec 2003 02:47:07 PM |
|
|
"DDB" <IHatNoOne@Fakecomcast.net> wrote in message news:<jbCdnXj2f5dBzlaiRVn-sA@comcast.com>...
You gotta love this bot *****, every time there is another dead US
soldier, this thing is the first to boast about it. Now let there be good
news for our troops and the Bot ***** criticizes the act of reporting that
news. It's pretty clear which side Harry is cheering for and it's not
America. More proof of liberal bias against US forces.
Reporting the news is proof of liberal bias against US forces?
Ahem, I think you need your tin foil hat adjusted. It seems to be a little tight.
"Harry Hope" <rivrvu@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
news:25imsv8l638codgeq0bq8jts3fr2u5kjok@4ax.com...
From The Boston Globe, 11/14/03:
http://www.boston.com/news/globe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2003/11/14/us_stays_blind_to_iraqi_casualties/
The mantra of the military from Tommy Franks down to his spokespeople
was, "We don't do body counts."
The most bald-faced expansion on that policy was given in April by
Brigadier General Vincent Brooks of Central Command.
"In all cases, we inflict a considerable amount of destruction on
whatever force comes into contact with us," Brooks said.
"It just is not worth trying to characterize by numbers. Frankly, if
we are going to be honorable by the warfare, we are not out there
trying to count up bodies."
............................................................................
...............
From The Associated Press, 12/1/03:
http://www.newsday.com/news/nationworld/wire/sns-ap-newsbrief,0,1411218.story?coll=sns-ap-nationworld-headlines
U.S.: 54 Iraqi Fighters Killed in Battle
SAMARRA, Iraq (AP) --
The U.S. military said 54 Iraqis were killed in the northern city of
Samarra as U.S. forces used tanks and cannons to fight their way out
of simultaneous ambushes while delivering new Iraqi currency to banks.
But residents said Monday that the casualty figure was much lower and
that the dead were mostly civilians.
___________________________________________________________
Harry
.
|
|
|
| User: "Rico" |
|
| Title: Re: "We don't do body counts" Huh? |
02 Dec 2003 07:29:16 AM |
|
|
In article <2df29c5c.0312011247.6e47f213@posting.google.com>, (Tempest) wrote:
"DDB" <IHatNoOne@Fakecomcast.net> wrote in message
news:<jbCdnXj2f5dBzlaiRVn-sA@comcast.com>...
You gotta love this bot *****, every time there is another dead US
soldier, this thing is the first to boast about it. Now let there be good
news for our troops and the Bot ***** criticizes the act of reporting that
news. It's pretty clear which side Harry is cheering for and it's not
America. More proof of liberal bias against US forces.
Reporting the news is proof of liberal bias against US forces?
Yes it is, real conservative and unbiased media would ignore these little
setbacks.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Tempest" |
|
| Title: Re: "We don't do body counts" Huh? |
02 Dec 2003 06:35:05 PM |
|
|
Rico wrote:
In article <2df29c5c.0312011247.6e47f213@posting.google.com>, (Tempest) wrote:
"DDB" <IHatNoOne@Fakecomcast.net> wrote in message
news:<jbCdnXj2f5dBzlaiRVn-sA@comcast.com>...
You gotta love this bot *****, every time there is another dead US
soldier, this thing is the first to boast about it. Now let there be good
news for our troops and the Bot ***** criticizes the act of reporting that
news. It's pretty clear which side Harry is cheering for and it's not
America. More proof of liberal bias against US forces.
Reporting the news is proof of liberal bias against US forces?
Yes it is, real conservative and unbiased media would ignore these little
setbacks.
Setbacks?
According to Bush, they're signs of Iraqi "progress".
--
During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a
revolutionary act.
- George Orwell
.
|
|
|
| User: "miss calm" |
|
| Title: Re: "We don't do body counts" Huh? |
02 Dec 2003 06:42:30 PM |
|
|
"Tempest" <tempest@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:3FCD2FC2.B5FB505B@hotmail.com...
Rico wrote:
In article <2df29c5c.0312011247.6e47f213@posting.google.com>,
mordacpreventor@hotmail.com (Tempest) wrote:
"DDB" <IHatNoOne@Fakecomcast.net> wrote in message
news:<jbCdnXj2f5dBzlaiRVn-sA@comcast.com>...
You gotta love this bot *****, every time there is another dead US
soldier, this thing is the first to boast about it. Now let there be
good
news for our troops and the Bot ***** criticizes the act of
reporting that
news. It's pretty clear which side Harry is cheering for and it's not
America. More proof of liberal bias against US forces.
Reporting the news is proof of liberal bias against US forces?
Yes it is, real conservative and unbiased media would ignore these
little
setbacks.
Setbacks?
According to Bush, they're signs of Iraqi "progress".
How about you go and do some body counts of the people buried alive in mass
garves you terrorist supporting piece of *****!
--
During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a
revolutionary act.
- George Orwell
.
|
|
|
| User: "Sid9" |
|
| Title: Re: "We don't do body counts" Huh? |
02 Dec 2003 07:22:44 PM |
|
|
Body counts are back!
-
-
"miss calm" <nospam@cat.net> wrote in message
news:bqjbgi$jrl$1@newsg2.svr.pol.co.uk...
"Tempest" <tempest@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:3FCD2FC2.B5FB505B@hotmail.com...
Rico wrote:
In article <2df29c5c.0312011247.6e47f213@posting.google.com>,
mordacpreventor@hotmail.com (Tempest) wrote:
"DDB" <IHatNoOne@Fakecomcast.net> wrote in message
news:<jbCdnXj2f5dBzlaiRVn-sA@comcast.com>...
You gotta love this bot *****, every time there is another dead
US
soldier, this thing is the first to boast about it. Now let there
be
good
news for our troops and the Bot ***** criticizes the act of
reporting that
news. It's pretty clear which side Harry is cheering for and it's
not
America. More proof of liberal bias against US forces.
Reporting the news is proof of liberal bias against US forces?
Yes it is, real conservative and unbiased media would ignore these
little
setbacks.
Setbacks?
According to Bush, they're signs of Iraqi "progress".
How about you go and do some body counts of the people buried alive in
mass
garves you terrorist supporting piece of *****!
--
During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a
revolutionary act.
- George Orwell
Body counts are back!
-
-
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Rico" |
|
| Title: Re: "We don't do body counts" Huh? |
04 Dec 2003 02:29:23 PM |
|
|
In article <bqjbgi$jrl$1@newsg2.svr.pol.co.uk>, "miss calm" <nospam@cat.net> wrote:
"Tempest" <tempest@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:3FCD2FC2.B5FB505B@hotmail.com...
Rico wrote:
In article <2df29c5c.0312011247.6e47f213@posting.google.com>,
mordacpreventor@hotmail.com (Tempest) wrote:
"DDB" <IHatNoOne@Fakecomcast.net> wrote in message
news:<jbCdnXj2f5dBzlaiRVn-sA@comcast.com>...
You gotta love this bot *****, every time there is another dead US
soldier, this thing is the first to boast about it. Now let there be
good
news for our troops and the Bot ***** criticizes the act of
reporting that
news. It's pretty clear which side Harry is cheering for and it's not
America. More proof of liberal bias against US forces.
Reporting the news is proof of liberal bias against US forces?
Yes it is, real conservative and unbiased media would ignore these
little
setbacks.
Setbacks?
According to Bush, they're signs of Iraqi "progress".
How about you go and do some body counts of the people buried alive in mass
garves you terrorist supporting piece of *****!
Hodgkinson said the majority of people buried in the mass graves are
believed to be Kurds killed by Saddam in the 1980s after rebelling
against the government and Shiites killed after an uprising following
the 1991 Gulf War.
http://www.bradenton.com/mld/bradenton/7218309.htm
You mean those mass graves, the ones when daddy and ronny were in control
of things? Those terrorist supporting pieces of ***** (your phrasing, not
mine)?
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Tempest" |
|
| Title: Re: "We don't do body counts" Huh? |
02 Dec 2003 11:42:53 PM |
|
|
miss calm wrote:
"Tempest" <tempest@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:3FCD2FC2.B5FB505B@hotmail.com...
Rico wrote:
In article <2df29c5c.0312011247.6e47f213@posting.google.com>,
mordacpreventor@hotmail.com (Tempest) wrote:
"DDB" <IHatNoOne@Fakecomcast.net> wrote in message
news:<jbCdnXj2f5dBzlaiRVn-sA@comcast.com>...
You gotta love this bot *****, every time there is another dead US
soldier, this thing is the first to boast about it. Now let there be
good
news for our troops and the Bot ***** criticizes the act of
reporting that
news. It's pretty clear which side Harry is cheering for and it's not
America. More proof of liberal bias against US forces.
Reporting the news is proof of liberal bias against US forces?
Yes it is, real conservative and unbiased media would ignore these
little
setbacks.
Setbacks?
According to Bush, they're signs of Iraqi "progress".
How about you go and do some body counts of the people buried alive in mass
garves you terrorist supporting piece of *****!
Do you suck off the winos with that mouth?
BTW, just what is a "mass garves"?
--
During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a
revolutionary act.
- George Orwell
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Bill Bradley" |
|
| Title: Re: "We don't do body counts" Huh? |
02 Dec 2003 07:02:58 PM |
|
|
miss calm wrote:
How about you go and do some body counts of the people buried alive in mass
garves you terrorist supporting piece of *****!
You mean like the ones US troops buried alive in 1991?
"Even on the ground, the U.S. preference to wage war impersonally and
with great haste leaves enemies with little time or opportunity to
surrender. During the Gulf War, U.S. tanks and bulldozers buried several
hundred Iraqi soldiers, some of whom were surrendering, in their
trenches rather than face the possibility of hand-to-hand combat."
Harper's Magazine May 2003 by Paul Maliszewski, Hadley Ross
http://www.findarticles.com/cf_dls/m1111/1836_306/101175965/p1/article.jhtml
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Rico" |
|
| Title: Re: "We don't do body counts" Huh? |
04 Dec 2003 02:25:54 PM |
|
|
In article <3FCD2FC2.B5FB505B@hotmail.com>, Tempest <tempest@hotmail.com> wrote:
Rico wrote:
In article <2df29c5c.0312011247.6e47f213@posting.google.com>,
mordacpreventor@hotmail.com (Tempest) wrote:
"DDB" <IHatNoOne@Fakecomcast.net> wrote in message
news:<jbCdnXj2f5dBzlaiRVn-sA@comcast.com>...
You gotta love this bot *****, every time there is another dead US
soldier, this thing is the first to boast about it. Now let there be good
news for our troops and the Bot ***** criticizes the act of reporting
that
news. It's pretty clear which side Harry is cheering for and it's not
America. More proof of liberal bias against US forces.
Reporting the news is proof of liberal bias against US forces?
Yes it is, real conservative and unbiased media would ignore these little
setbacks.
Setbacks?
According to Bush, they're signs of Iraqi "progress".
Oops, well OK. these little 'progressions'
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Rico" |
|
| Title: Re: "We don't do body counts" Huh? |
01 Dec 2003 10:32:03 AM |
|
|
In article <jbCdnXj2f5dBzlaiRVn-sA@comcast.com>, "DDB" <IHatNoOne@Fakecomcast.net> wrote:
You gotta love this bot *****, every time there is another dead US
soldier, this thing is the first to boast about it. Now let there be good
news for our troops and the Bot ***** criticizes the act of reporting that
news. It's pretty clear which side Harry is cheering for and it's not
America. More proof of liberal bias against US forces.
How can Liberals who want them out of the combat zone (reduced chances of
getting shot or ambushed) be against them? Nay, it is right wingers who
hate our troops and are busy getting them killed over a pack of Bush lies.
"Harry Hope" <rivrvu@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
news:25imsv8l638codgeq0bq8jts3fr2u5kjok@4ax.com...
From The Boston Globe, 11/14/03:
http://www.boston.com/news/globe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2003/11/14/us_
stays_blind_to_iraqi_casualties/
The mantra of the military from Tommy Franks down to his spokespeople
was, "We don't do body counts."
The most bald-faced expansion on that policy was given in April by
Brigadier General Vincent Brooks of Central Command.
"In all cases, we inflict a considerable amount of destruction on
whatever force comes into contact with us," Brooks said.
"It just is not worth trying to characterize by numbers. Frankly, if
we are going to be honorable by the warfare, we are not out there
trying to count up bodies."
.............................................................................
................
From The Associated Press, 12/1/03:
http://www.newsday.com/news/nationworld/wire/sns-ap-newsbrief,0,1411218.story?c
oll=sns-ap-nationworld-headlines
U.S.: 54 Iraqi Fighters Killed in Battle
SAMARRA, Iraq (AP) --
The U.S. military said 54 Iraqis were killed in the northern city of
Samarra as U.S. forces used tanks and cannons to fight their way out
of simultaneous ambushes while delivering new Iraqi currency to banks.
But residents said Monday that the casualty figure was much lower and
that the dead were mostly civilians.
___________________________________________________________
Harry
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
