The war on terroism and pronunciation

[The Infamous Scamola]

Now you are just being silly.

Well, I am pretty fond of the silliness.

 

[Eldritch Warlord]

in Australia it is pronounced ih-raaq with a long "a" sound and a short "i" sound. the point is that every accent is different and the only time it is is wrong is when they skip a letter entirely, like "aluminium" and the wrong american version "aluminum" it has a fucking "i"

thank you, the yank's pronunciation of aluminium has always annoyed me. Say it right guys.

It's supposed to be "alumium" anyway. Everyone's wrong.

 

[Goldbling]

Fun fact, there actually is a "cow" in "Moscow", listen carefully next time you hear a news anchor try to pronounce it.

Yeah, moscoe is how they try and say it

And i'm on the side with the most guns, i'll pronounce the losing sides country however I want.

That's ironic, seeing how America is pretty much getting their ass kicked.

Seriously, show me proof of that statement.

Show me proof of yours.

Seriously, didn't you guys learn anything from Vietnam?
Ok, you killed Saddam, so what? You just created another terrorist hotbead, you've made a new generation of Iraqis resentful towards you, thousands of American ( and British, Canadian, etc) G.I.s have lost their life and for what?
The Iraqis aren't any better now then they were under Saddam Hussein and you're stuck in a war against an illdefined enemy that doesn't look as if he's gonna run out of steam any time soon.

Ok, maybe you ain't loosing, but you sure as hell ain't winning.

Now you are just being silly.

http://www.afterdowningstreet.org/node/41752

US military occupation forces in Iraq under Commander-in-Chief Obama suffered 31 combat casualties in the week ending April 14, 2009 as the official total rose to at least 71,575. The total includes 34,625 dead and wounded from what the Pentagon classifies as "hostile" causes and more than 36,950 dead and medically evacuated (as of Feb. 28, 2009) from "non-hostile" causes.

The actual total is over 100,000 because the Pentagon chooses not to count as "Iraq casualties" the more than 30,000 veterans whose injuries-mainly brain trauma from explosions and PTSD - diagnosed only after they had left Iraq.

100,000 American servicemen and women dead, wounded or otherwise unable to continue fighting because of this remarkably successful (and we know it is successful because Iraq is so stable [http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/8016241.stm]) attempt to make all the terrorist organisations of the world hate them even more than they already did. How on earth can you not see that isn't complete victory?

Note: We need sarcasm tags here.

Yeah but we will never get an accurate number of how many we killed, they have this nasty habit of dragging away their dead so we cant get a headcount.

 

[cuddly_tomato]

And i'm on the side with the most guns, i'll pronounce the losing sides country however I want.

That's ironic, seeing how America is pretty much getting their ass kicked.

Seriously, show me proof of that statement.

Show me proof of yours.

Seriously, didn't you guys learn anything from Vietnam?
Ok, you killed Saddam, so what? You just created another terrorist hotbead, you've made a new generation of Iraqis resentful towards you, thousands of American ( and British, Canadian, etc) G.I.s have lost their life and for what?
The Iraqis aren't any better now then they were under Saddam Hussein and you're stuck in a war against an illdefined enemy that doesn't look as if he's gonna run out of steam any time soon.

Ok, maybe you ain't loosing, but you sure as hell ain't winning.

Now you are just being silly.

http://www.afterdowningstreet.org/node/41752

US military occupation forces in Iraq under Commander-in-Chief Obama suffered 31 combat casualties in the week ending April 14, 2009 as the official total rose to at least 71,575. The total includes 34,625 dead and wounded from what the Pentagon classifies as "hostile" causes and more than 36,950 dead and medically evacuated (as of Feb. 28, 2009) from "non-hostile" causes.

The actual total is over 100,000 because the Pentagon chooses not to count as "Iraq casualties" the more than 30,000 veterans whose injuries-mainly brain trauma from explosions and PTSD - diagnosed only after they had left Iraq.

100,000 American servicemen and women dead, wounded or otherwise unable to continue fighting because of this remarkably successful (and we know it is successful because Iraq is so stable [http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/8016241.stm]) attempt to make all the terrorist organisations of the world hate them even more than they already did. How on earth can you not see that isn't complete victory?

Note: We need sarcasm tags here.

Yeah but we will never get an accurate number of how many we killed, they have this nasty habit of dragging away their dead so we cant get a headcount.

Sorry, but "who killed the most and who lost the most" isn't how you calculte who wins a war. This isn't a sport, casualties aren't "goals". You don't get extra points for maiming horribly. If you only loose one person, but not achieve a single one of your objectives, you have lost the war no matter how many the enemies loose. Americas objectives in this (a peaceful Middle East, less terrorism, free and democratic Iraq) have not been met. The cost in human life and money has been staggering, and what has it all been for?

America has lost this war. No ifs or buts.

 

[Horticulture]

thank you, the yank's pronunciation of aluminium has always annoyed me. Say it right guys.

Turns out we spell it differently too...almost as though we have a separate dialect.

 

[ThorUK]

What? A nuclear weapons program in I-ran?(!)

Fun fact, there actually is a "cow" in "Moscow", listen carefully next time you hear a news anchor try to pronounce it.

The correct British pronounciation is closer to "Mosque-oh" than the German and American way - "Moss-cow". :-/

Actually amercians say -"Moss-koh" too, at least everyone in the media does, listen to it sometime, (assuming you're american)

Moscow is a loanword, so you can't justify different spellings based on dialect.

Fun fact, there actually is a "cow" in "Moscow", listen carefully next time you hear a news anchor try to pronounce it.

Another fun fact! "Moscow" is a giant fuck up of a name. What, it's harder to say "Moskva" (Mosk-vah) then Moscow?

"Moss-koh" is the giant fuck up,-Moscow is the proper transliteration of the way Russian's pronounce Moskva.

Allow me to intercede at this point. The Russian name, Москва ("Moskva", transliterated from the cyrillic) actually sounds more like "Maskwa" when pronounced by a russian, so the American/German "Moss-cow" is further from the current Russian (let's assume this is the true version of the word) way of saying it. Although given the English spelling, there's almost no chance of anyone reading it as the Russians do, the British pronouncination rings truer to me (I lived for 9 years in Russia and speak the language fluently).

 

[BaronAsh]

And i'm on the side with the most guns, i'll pronounce the losing sides country however I want.

That's ironic, seeing how America is pretty much getting their ass kicked.

Seriously, show me proof of that statement.

Show me proof of yours.

Seriously, didn't you guys learn anything from Vietnam?
Ok, you killed Saddam, so what? You just created another terrorist hotbead, you've made a new generation of Iraqis resentful towards you, thousands of American ( and British, Canadian, etc) G.I.s have lost their life and for what?
The Iraqis aren't any better now then they were under Saddam Hussein and you're stuck in a war against an illdefined enemy that doesn't look as if he's gonna run out of steam any time soon.

Ok, maybe you ain't loosing, but you sure as hell ain't winning.

Now you are just being silly.

http://www.afterdowningstreet.org/node/41752

US military occupation forces in Iraq under Commander-in-Chief Obama suffered 31 combat casualties in the week ending April 14, 2009 as the official total rose to at least 71,575. The total includes 34,625 dead and wounded from what the Pentagon classifies as "hostile" causes and more than 36,950 dead and medically evacuated (as of Feb. 28, 2009) from "non-hostile" causes.

The actual total is over 100,000 because the Pentagon chooses not to count as "Iraq casualties" the more than 30,000 veterans whose injuries-mainly brain trauma from explosions and PTSD - diagnosed only after they had left Iraq.

100,000 American servicemen and women dead, wounded or otherwise unable to continue fighting because of this remarkably successful (and we know it is successful because Iraq is so stable [http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/8016241.stm]) attempt to make all the terrorist organisations of the world hate them even more than they already did. How on earth can you not see that isn't complete victory?

Note: We need sarcasm tags here.

Here's my problem they say that there getting these statistics from the pentagon(which I believe), but they AREN'T showing you how many insurgents and terrorists the military stop and or kill. (you know the pentagon puts that out too)

Oh and I'd rather have the military fight them over there, then over here.


EDIT: It's ironic that we lose as many people to accidents as we do to the enemy. I guess Americans are stupid.

 

[cuddly_tomato]

And i'm on the side with the most guns, i'll pronounce the losing sides country however I want.

That's ironic, seeing how America is pretty much getting their ass kicked.

Seriously, show me proof of that statement.

Show me proof of yours.

Seriously, didn't you guys learn anything from Vietnam?
Ok, you killed Saddam, so what? You just created another terrorist hotbead, you've made a new generation of Iraqis resentful towards you, thousands of American ( and British, Canadian, etc) G.I.s have lost their life and for what?
The Iraqis aren't any better now then they were under Saddam Hussein and you're stuck in a war against an illdefined enemy that doesn't look as if he's gonna run out of steam any time soon.

Ok, maybe you ain't loosing, but you sure as hell ain't winning.

Now you are just being silly.

http://www.afterdowningstreet.org/node/41752

US military occupation forces in Iraq under Commander-in-Chief Obama suffered 31 combat casualties in the week ending April 14, 2009 as the official total rose to at least 71,575. The total includes 34,625 dead and wounded from what the Pentagon classifies as "hostile" causes and more than 36,950 dead and medically evacuated (as of Feb. 28, 2009) from "non-hostile" causes.

The actual total is over 100,000 because the Pentagon chooses not to count as "Iraq casualties" the more than 30,000 veterans whose injuries-mainly brain trauma from explosions and PTSD - diagnosed only after they had left Iraq.

100,000 American servicemen and women dead, wounded or otherwise unable to continue fighting because of this remarkably successful (and we know it is successful because Iraq is so stable [http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/8016241.stm]) attempt to make all the terrorist organisations of the world hate them even more than they already did. How on earth can you not see that isn't complete victory?

Note: We need sarcasm tags here.

Here's my problem they say that there getting these statistics from the pentagon(which I believe), but they AREN'T showing you how many insurgents and terrorists the military stop and or kill. (you know the pentagon puts that out too)

Read my previous post on this point [http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/jump/18.109459.1876527].

Oh and I'd rather have the military fight them over there, then over here.

The thing is this is due to the increased security measures taken since 9/11, and nothing to do with the war in Iraq. Indeed, there wasn't a single Al-Qaeda terror cell in Iraq prior to the invasion, there are many now. As soon as the USA withdraw they are going to try to follow the military back. Had the USA just stayed at home and bolstered its defences it would have been far better equipped to deal with these kinds of problems.

 

[Ignignoct]

Oh and I'd rather have the military fight them over there, then over here.

The thing is this is due to the increased security measures taken since 9/11, and nothing to do with the war in Iraq. Indeed, there wasn't a single Al-Qaeda terror cell in Iraq prior to the invasion, there are many now. As soon as the USA withdraw they are going to try to follow the military back. Had the USA just stayed at home and bolstered its defences it would have been far better equipped to deal with these kinds of problems.

EXACTLY!

 

[Jadak]

Personally, If I were going to invade something, I'd mispronounce it's name intentionally, because destroying their infrastructure just isn't irritating enough, you've got to go that extra step to antagonize them.

 

[G1eet]

I knew it was only a matter of time before Cuddly Tomato invaded the flame war. Woohoo!
(No sarcasm was used).

It's so cute that you actually believe that's the reason for the war lol. The Saudis HATE the US and don't have democracy and yet the US doesn't invade them...I wonder why?

You keep believe what Bush Jr says...
I'm not saying I believe what Bush said, just that that was the "motive".
And where the hell do you get off saying that the Saudis hate the US? The Saudi royal family is best buds with Bush and co, they're probably one of the most pro-American regimes in the whole Middle east.

edit: Oh, and if you'd actually read my whole post instead of just quoting the first bit you would have understood what I really meant.

Those countries change alliances whenever the hell they feel it is appropriate. Before the Gulf War, when Saudi Arabia feared an Iraqi invasion, they practically begged us to protect them and their precious oil fields. The U.S. is like the chaperone that watches over Israel in case it gets bullied, and once the chaperone turns his back, the other countries jump him.
Well, at least they haven't done anything major since Oslo. Nowadays it's just Hezbollah firing rockets from Southern Lebanon and cry "uncle" whenever the IMI tanks roll to their doorstep.

They may "like" the U.S. now- when it is convenient- but under the table they can make whatever trades they please. God knows we did it too. Ollie North anyone?
Nothing is overt anymore; it's all so much cloak and dagger.

 

[ThePlasmatizer]

Come on America if you're going to go to war then atleast learn to pronounce the place your going to attack, because I have to admit I've never heard of a place called Eye Rack.

The correct pronunciation is ee-rock/ih-rock.

When tensions start to rise with Iran because of their nuclear program it might be helpful to learn it's called ih-ran as well.

Through all the news coverage this is what I kept hearing.

No no no, you can't really tell people how to pronounce a word like that. It's like the word scone, or garage.

Sk-on not Sk-own.

 

[Ghost]

...so? even people in my school from the same area as me pronounce things differently from each other

 

[BaronAsh]

And i'm on the side with the most guns, i'll pronounce the losing sides country however I want.

That's ironic, seeing how America is pretty much getting their ass kicked.

Seriously, show me proof of that statement.

Show me proof of yours.

Seriously, didn't you guys learn anything from Vietnam?
Ok, you killed Saddam, so what? You just created another terrorist hotbead, you've made a new generation of Iraqis resentful towards you, thousands of American ( and British, Canadian, etc) G.I.s have lost their life and for what?
The Iraqis aren't any better now then they were under Saddam Hussein and you're stuck in a war against an illdefined enemy that doesn't look as if he's gonna run out of steam any time soon.

Ok, maybe you ain't loosing, but you sure as hell ain't winning.

Now you are just being silly.

http://www.afterdowningstreet.org/node/41752

US military occupation forces in Iraq under Commander-in-Chief Obama suffered 31 combat casualties in the week ending April 14, 2009 as the official total rose to at least 71,575. The total includes 34,625 dead and wounded from what the Pentagon classifies as "hostile" causes and more than 36,950 dead and medically evacuated (as of Feb. 28, 2009) from "non-hostile" causes.

The actual total is over 100,000 because the Pentagon chooses not to count as "Iraq casualties" the more than 30,000 veterans whose injuries-mainly brain trauma from explosions and PTSD - diagnosed only after they had left Iraq.

100,000 American servicemen and women dead, wounded or otherwise unable to continue fighting because of this remarkably successful (and we know it is successful because Iraq is so stable [http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/8016241.stm]) attempt to make all the terrorist organisations of the world hate them even more than they already did. How on earth can you not see that isn't complete victory?

Note: We need sarcasm tags here.

Yeah but we will never get an accurate number of how many we killed, they have this nasty habit of dragging away their dead so we cant get a headcount.

Sorry, but "who killed the most and who lost the most" isn't how you calculte who wins a war. This isn't a sport, casualties aren't "goals". You don't get extra points for maiming horribly. If you only loose one person, but not achieve a single one of your objectives, you have lost the war no matter how many the enemies loose. Americas objectives in this (a peaceful Middle East, less terrorism, free and democratic Iraq) have not been met. The cost in human life and money has been staggering, and what has it all been for?

America has lost this war. No ifs or buts.

OK, you want us to bolster our defences at home but, you also want to ban civilian firearms?

EDIT:I believe you have made the argument several times.

 

[cuddly_tomato]

And i'm on the side with the most guns, i'll pronounce the losing sides country however I want.

That's ironic, seeing how America is pretty much getting their ass kicked.

Seriously, show me proof of that statement.

Show me proof of yours.

Seriously, didn't you guys learn anything from Vietnam?
Ok, you killed Saddam, so what? You just created another terrorist hotbead, you've made a new generation of Iraqis resentful towards you, thousands of American ( and British, Canadian, etc) G.I.s have lost their life and for what?
The Iraqis aren't any better now then they were under Saddam Hussein and you're stuck in a war against an illdefined enemy that doesn't look as if he's gonna run out of steam any time soon.

Ok, maybe you ain't loosing, but you sure as hell ain't winning.

Now you are just being silly.

http://www.afterdowningstreet.org/node/41752

US military occupation forces in Iraq under Commander-in-Chief Obama suffered 31 combat casualties in the week ending April 14, 2009 as the official total rose to at least 71,575. The total includes 34,625 dead and wounded from what the Pentagon classifies as "hostile" causes and more than 36,950 dead and medically evacuated (as of Feb. 28, 2009) from "non-hostile" causes.

The actual total is over 100,000 because the Pentagon chooses not to count as "Iraq casualties" the more than 30,000 veterans whose injuries-mainly brain trauma from explosions and PTSD - diagnosed only after they had left Iraq.

100,000 American servicemen and women dead, wounded or otherwise unable to continue fighting because of this remarkably successful (and we know it is successful because Iraq is so stable [http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/8016241.stm]) attempt to make all the terrorist organisations of the world hate them even more than they already did. How on earth can you not see that isn't complete victory?

Note: We need sarcasm tags here.

Yeah but we will never get an accurate number of how many we killed, they have this nasty habit of dragging away their dead so we cant get a headcount.

Sorry, but "who killed the most and who lost the most" isn't how you calculte who wins a war. This isn't a sport, casualties aren't "goals". You don't get extra points for maiming horribly. If you only loose one person, but not achieve a single one of your objectives, you have lost the war no matter how many the enemies loose. Americas objectives in this (a peaceful Middle East, less terrorism, free and democratic Iraq) have not been met. The cost in human life and money has been staggering, and what has it all been for?

America has lost this war. No ifs or buts.

OK, you want us to bolster our defences at home but, you also want to ban civilian firearms?

1. I never mentioned civilian firearms.

2. Civilians are not adept at dealing with terrorists. You need training and expertise to do that. What do you think you are facing with a terrorist? Some guy kitted out with an AK-47 and "I am a terrorist" stencilled on his shirt? Terrorists are invisible until they strike, and then it is too late.

3. Restricting firearms in to the public would reduce the likelyhood of terrorists aquiring those firearms.

 

[BaronAsh]

And i'm on the side with the most guns, i'll pronounce the losing sides country however I want.

That's ironic, seeing how America is pretty much getting their ass kicked.

Seriously, show me proof of that statement.

Show me proof of yours.

Seriously, didn't you guys learn anything from Vietnam?
Ok, you killed Saddam, so what? You just created another terrorist hotbead, you've made a new generation of Iraqis resentful towards you, thousands of American ( and British, Canadian, etc) G.I.s have lost their life and for what?
The Iraqis aren't any better now then they were under Saddam Hussein and you're stuck in a war against an illdefined enemy that doesn't look as if he's gonna run out of steam any time soon.

Ok, maybe you ain't loosing, but you sure as hell ain't winning.

Now you are just being silly.

http://www.afterdowningstreet.org/node/41752

US military occupation forces in Iraq under Commander-in-Chief Obama suffered 31 combat casualties in the week ending April 14, 2009 as the official total rose to at least 71,575. The total includes 34,625 dead and wounded from what the Pentagon classifies as "hostile" causes and more than 36,950 dead and medically evacuated (as of Feb. 28, 2009) from "non-hostile" causes.

The actual total is over 100,000 because the Pentagon chooses not to count as "Iraq casualties" the more than 30,000 veterans whose injuries-mainly brain trauma from explosions and PTSD - diagnosed only after they had left Iraq.

100,000 American servicemen and women dead, wounded or otherwise unable to continue fighting because of this remarkably successful (and we know it is successful because Iraq is so stable [http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/8016241.stm]) attempt to make all the terrorist organisations of the world hate them even more than they already did. How on earth can you not see that isn't complete victory?

Note: We need sarcasm tags here.

Yeah but we will never get an accurate number of how many we killed, they have this nasty habit of dragging away their dead so we cant get a headcount.

Sorry, but "who killed the most and who lost the most" isn't how you calculte who wins a war. This isn't a sport, casualties aren't "goals". You don't get extra points for maiming horribly. If you only loose one person, but not achieve a single one of your objectives, you have lost the war no matter how many the enemies loose. Americas objectives in this (a peaceful Middle East, less terrorism, free and democratic Iraq) have not been met. The cost in human life and money has been staggering, and what has it all been for?

America has lost this war. No ifs or buts.

OK, you want us to bolster our defences at home but, you also want to ban civilian firearms?

1. I never mentioned civilian firearms.

2. Civilians are not adept at dealing with terrorists. You need training and expertise to do that. What do you think you are facing with a terrorist? Some guy kitted out with an AK-47 and "I am a terrorist" stencilled on his shirt? Terrorists are invisible until they strike, and then it is too late.

3. Restricting firearms in to the public would reduce the likelyhood of terrorists aquiring those firearms.

Which is why we should fight them over there and not over here. I'm more concerned about American lives then others.

 

[cainx10a]

And i'm on the side with the most guns, i'll pronounce the losing sides country however I want.

That's ironic, seeing how America is pretty much getting their ass kicked.

Seriously, show me proof of that statement.

Show me proof of yours.

Seriously, didn't you guys learn anything from Vietnam?
Ok, you killed Saddam, so what? You just created another terrorist hotbead, you've made a new generation of Iraqis resentful towards you, thousands of American ( and British, Canadian, etc) G.I.s have lost their life and for what?
The Iraqis aren't any better now then they were under Saddam Hussein and you're stuck in a war against an illdefined enemy that doesn't look as if he's gonna run out of steam any time soon.

Ok, maybe you ain't loosing, but you sure as hell ain't winning.

Now you are just being silly.

http://www.afterdowningstreet.org/node/41752

US military occupation forces in Iraq under Commander-in-Chief Obama suffered 31 combat casualties in the week ending April 14, 2009 as the official total rose to at least 71,575. The total includes 34,625 dead and wounded from what the Pentagon classifies as "hostile" causes and more than 36,950 dead and medically evacuated (as of Feb. 28, 2009) from "non-hostile" causes.

The actual total is over 100,000 because the Pentagon chooses not to count as "Iraq casualties" the more than 30,000 veterans whose injuries-mainly brain trauma from explosions and PTSD - diagnosed only after they had left Iraq.

100,000 American servicemen and women dead, wounded or otherwise unable to continue fighting because of this remarkably successful (and we know it is successful because Iraq is so stable [http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/8016241.stm]) attempt to make all the terrorist organisations of the world hate them even more than they already did. How on earth can you not see that isn't complete victory?

Note: We need sarcasm tags here.

Yeah but we will never get an accurate number of how many we killed, they have this nasty habit of dragging away their dead so we cant get a headcount.

Sorry, but "who killed the most and who lost the most" isn't how you calculte who wins a war. This isn't a sport, casualties aren't "goals". You don't get extra points for maiming horribly. If you only loose one person, but not achieve a single one of your objectives, you have lost the war no matter how many the enemies loose. Americas objectives in this (a peaceful Middle East, less terrorism, free and democratic Iraq) have not been met. The cost in human life and money has been staggering, and what has it all been for?

America has lost this war. No ifs or buts.

OK, you want us to bolster our defences at home but, you also want to ban civilian firearms?

1. I never mentioned civilian firearms.

2. Civilians are not adept at dealing with terrorists. You need training and expertise to do that. What do you think you are facing with a terrorist? Some guy kitted out with an AK-47 and "I am a terrorist" stencilled on his shirt? Terrorists are invisible until they strike, and then it is too late.

3. Restricting firearms in to the public would reduce the likelyhood of terrorists aquiring those firearms.

Which is why we should fight them over there and not over here. I'm more concerned about American lives then others.

Yep. come to think of it, it's a good strategy to make the brown man hate you, fight you, so that you can kill him. One less brown man, one less terrorist.

 

[TwistedEllipses]

I'm going to let this one go because the Americans seem to get it right it regards to 'A-men', for some reason in Britain we pronounce the 'a' as a 'r'...

Oh and if you live in England, there's a place called 'Shrewsbury', but the locals pronounce it 'sh-rows-bury', so I guess that's the right way even though it makes no sense...

EDIT: Forgot my main point. It should really be what each region calls itself, but since no-one is going to start referring to Germany as 'Deutschland' anytime soon...

 

[cuddly_tomato]

Spoiler

And i'm on the side with the most guns, i'll pronounce the losing sides country however I want.

That's ironic, seeing how America is pretty much getting their ass kicked.

Seriously, show me proof of that statement.

Show me proof of yours.

Seriously, didn't you guys learn anything from Vietnam?
Ok, you killed Saddam, so what? You just created another terrorist hotbead, you've made a new generation of Iraqis resentful towards you, thousands of American ( and British, Canadian, etc) G.I.s have lost their life and for what?
The Iraqis aren't any better now then they were under Saddam Hussein and you're stuck in a war against an illdefined enemy that doesn't look as if he's gonna run out of steam any time soon.

Ok, maybe you ain't loosing, but you sure as hell ain't winning.

Now you are just being silly.

http://www.afterdowningstreet.org/node/41752

US military occupation forces in Iraq under Commander-in-Chief Obama suffered 31 combat casualties in the week ending April 14, 2009 as the official total rose to at least 71,575. The total includes 34,625 dead and wounded from what the Pentagon classifies as "hostile" causes and more than 36,950 dead and medically evacuated (as of Feb. 28, 2009) from "non-hostile" causes.

The actual total is over 100,000 because the Pentagon chooses not to count as "Iraq casualties" the more than 30,000 veterans whose injuries-mainly brain trauma from explosions and PTSD - diagnosed only after they had left Iraq.

100,000 American servicemen and women dead, wounded or otherwise unable to continue fighting because of this remarkably successful (and we know it is successful because Iraq is so stable [http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/8016241.stm]) attempt to make all the terrorist organisations of the world hate them even more than they already did. How on earth can you not see that isn't complete victory?

Note: We need sarcasm tags here.

Yeah but we will never get an accurate number of how many we killed, they have this nasty habit of dragging away their dead so we cant get a headcount.

Sorry, but "who killed the most and who lost the most" isn't how you calculte who wins a war. This isn't a sport, casualties aren't "goals". You don't get extra points for maiming horribly. If you only loose one person, but not achieve a single one of your objectives, you have lost the war no matter how many the enemies loose. Americas objectives in this (a peaceful Middle East, less terrorism, free and democratic Iraq) have not been met. The cost in human life and money has been staggering, and what has it all been for?

America has lost this war. No ifs or buts.

OK, you want us to bolster our defences at home but, you also want to ban civilian firearms?

1. I never mentioned civilian firearms.

2. Civilians are not adept at dealing with terrorists. You need training and expertise to do that. What do you think you are facing with a terrorist? Some guy kitted out with an AK-47 and "I am a terrorist" stencilled on his shirt? Terrorists are invisible until they strike, and then it is too late.

3. Restricting firearms in to the public would reduce the likelyhood of terrorists aquiring those firearms.

Which is why we should fight them over there and not over here. I'm more concerned about American lives then others.

And who are "them" exactly? Iraqis? There wasn't a single Iraq attack on the USA prior to the invasion, there are several per day now. And even if you withdraw you have made an enemy for a long time to come. The "them" to which you are refering are only killing Americans day after day because of what has happened to their country at the hands of GW Bush and his insane government.

 

[US Crash Fire]

in Australia it is pronounced ih-raaq with a long "a" sound and a short "i" sound. the point is that every accent is different and the only time it is is wrong is when they skip a letter entirely, like "aluminium" and the wrong american version "aluminum" it has a fucking "i"

much like the American "erb" and the proper pronunciation "herb"