According to enemy propoganda you mean, so what? They provide no evidence to support that conclusion, yet you mindlessly repeat it as if it's fact. Are you incapable of thinking for yourself?

[quote]In short: Of course the US troops have killed a large number of armed resistance combatants/terrorists in Iraq, but for each casualty the US inflict on the armed resistance, they seem to take one casualty themselves, and that has to be very frustrating throughout the US forces in Iraq.[/according to numbers you make up out of the blue.

Fact is, they are killing each other so we don't have to risk our soldiers doing it. That's called good strategy. Make the enemy die.

Yes they have, I agree. That is what they are supposed to do.

__________________
There are known knowns. These are things we know that we know. There are known unknowns. That is to say, there are things that we know we don't know. But there are also unknown unknowns. There are things we don't know we don't know. -- Rummy

Wise words from a wise man.

I gave you my source, and also supplied you with a link: The source is Los Angeles Times. Is that what you call the enemy? Los Angeles Times quoted US officers in Iraq.

I wrote: "In short: Of course the US troops have killed a large number of armed resistance combatants/terrorists in Iraq, but for each casualty the US inflict on the armed resistance, they seem to take one casualty themselves, and that has to be very frustrating throughout the US forces in Iraq." You replied: - Well, since the total number of Coalition casualties in Iraq is about 22,000 - please tell me if you think that they have succeeded in inflicting higher casualties to the armed resistance/terrorists? Do you really think that US forces have managed to inflict 20,000 casualties on the guerillas/terrorists in Iraq?

Are you serious?

1. Prior to the invasion of Iraq, we who opposed the invasion said that a foreign invasion will cause chaos and civil war in Iraq. The war lobby dismissed that. And now you salute that utter failure for Bush's alleged goal in Iraq? Hey - where's that sweet talk about establishing democracy, etc? But seriously - would you advocate sinister plottings, like the CIA or Mossad planting bombs among Shia and Sunni crowds, making it appear as though Shiites or Sunnis are the culprits, in order to make them kill each other? (That is exactly what many people in Iraq think, but I think they are wrong.)

2. You have totally missed the point when you talk about "they are killing each other - make the enemy die". Look: For decades there has been an ongoing (declared or undeclared) war between the Shiite extremist Iran and the (previously) dominating Sunni extremists in Iraq. This war was fought openly in the 1980s, and through proxies in the 1990s. In 2003, the USA removed Saddam Hussein - the leader of the most powerful Sunni extremist enemies of Iran. Instead, Iran's agents were able to gain power in Iraq. Right now, Iran's two main enemies - the USA and the Sunni extremists - are killing each other. How about that: 22,000 US casualties and maybe 20,000 Sunni extremist casualties without a single Iranian life lost. And Iran's agents are gaining more and more power in Iraq.

If anyone, it is the Iranians who have reason to say: "That's called good strategy. Make the enemy die." And you think that the USA and democracy is gaining!

Where are you comming up with your numbers for the enemy casualties.

I think you just made them up.

Typical liberal.

Nothing to back up your claims.

__________________
There are known knowns. These are things we know that we know. There are known unknowns. That is to say, there are things that we know we don't know. But there are also unknown unknowns. There are things we don't know we don't know. -- Rummy

Wise words from a wise man.

I think we should all just realize that we've lost the war in Iraq, because as I've said before all the good that we may have done has been seriously offset by the hypocritical image we've cut for ourselves. Throw in an impending civil war, politicans distancing themselves /away/ from Bush and /his/ war, and you've got a lost war. I see a withdrawl from Iraq far before Iraq is ready to stand on its own two feet, and while I don't like such truths, thats how it is. Not that we could hope to do much in Iraq in another year anyway, as if the people of the United States would allow that (Mostly because the "stay the course" bull has proven to answer with so little). The only other way I see anything happening is if the governing body offers something different that might work, but I don't see anything new or different from congress or the administration (Of course, probably too late by now).

__________________
I don't pretend to know everything, educate me, and I'll try to educate you. Shouting matches and insults aren't going to convince me.

I'm sure we will be in Iraq for 2 more years while Bush is in the White House. After that, not so sure.

So then you would say that things are going to according to plan in Iraq? Btw, Malaria can take a long time to cure. How long are we going to need to be in Iraq?

__________________
[B]Do not let steadfast stupidity prevail![/B]

Hairball that is a pathetic attempt at misrepresenting someone elses intent, even for you.

__________________
[IMG]http://www.gersbachia.com/gort%5Fanim%5B1%5D.gif[/IMG]
The universe grows smaller every day and the threat of aggression by any group anywhere can no longer be tolerated. There must be security for all or no one is secure... - Klaatu

Haurballxavier, I never made up any casualties for the Iraqi armed resistance/terrorists in Iraq.

All I said was that so far, the Iraqi resistance has inflicted 22,000 casualties on the Coalition troops, and I doubt the Coalition has been able to inflict as many casualties on the Iraqi armed resistance/terrorists in Iraq.

I asked you what you think about that, and so far you haven't provided an answer. That could be interpreted as an admission that the Coalition troops are losing more troops than the number of armed enemy combatants that they are able to take out. Now that should serve as a very important warningng signal to the planners in the White House and the Pentagon before they enter the next war adventure. Or maybe that in fact is the main reason why Bush has not attacked Iran or Syria?

Iraq Coalition Casualty Count

US killed 2592
UK killed 115
Other 115
TOTAL 2822

Averge of 2.28 killed per day (1238 days)

US wounded 18,777


Iraq Body Count

Civilians reported killed by military intervention in Iraq:

Minimum - 40, 069
Maximum - 44, 596


I haven't been able to find a good source for the number of terrorists and/or insurgents killed in Iraq - can anyone provide a good source for this information?

So each day there have been an average of 18 Coalition casualties in Iraq, and between 32 and 36 killed Iraqi civilians since Bush decided to invade Iraq.

No one knows the number of armed Iraqi men which have been killed in combat with Coalition forces, but their number of course is limited by the total number of Iraqi men who have taken up arms against US troops since the fall of Baghdad in April 2003.

I don't know the total number of men which have joined the Iraqi resistance to fight the US troops since then. But I doubt the guerilla forces have been able to muster hundreds of thousands of armed men or even tens of thousands.

I would guess that the total number of guerilla forces which presently are holding the 130,000-strong US force bogged down and scaring the s... out of the US soldiers is somewhere between two and five thousand armed men. (I remember when US officials denied there were more than a couple of hundred "diehards", but that obviously was just another case of grossly underestimating the risks in Iraq.)