what the crap?

[O.R.I.O.N.]

Of plenty use when they can't even shoot directly forward.

[Pie]

You could probably conquer Afghanistan with a baguette and a roll of duct tape.

We all know the french couldn't...
So it depends on what kind of baguette...

I could conquer afghanistan with a dried out sharpie.

Speaking of dried up, France is running out of champaign, Suckers.

So we're all at the agreement that France sucks, And Afghanistan is a punch of wimps?

[Radical Terrorist]

People make fun of us, but we have a lower casualty count in Afghanistan after fighting there longer than the us has been occupying Iraq. Not the best way to judge progress, but it does say something good about us.

Date Posted: February 01, 2008, 11:09:34 pmThat's alright, when france runs out of wine, you people can by some good ole American Owned Canadian "Horse P***"

[Pie]

It's not running out exactly, Just the French aren't getting to drink any...
Rebellion anyone?

[Radical Terrorist]

Last time the French got upset and rebelled, some heads rolled. Quite literally.

[a-4-year-old]

People make fun of us, but we have a lower casualty count in Afghanistan after fighting there longer than the us has been occupying Iraq. Not the best way to judge progress, but it does say something good about us.

That you don't do anything?

The sad thing is that the new's skewed view of the war.

for example, the worst casualties in a month was 5 people in one day, the rest of the month was hardly anything. Philadelphia is more dangerous than iraq.

Last time the French got upset and rebelled, some heads rolled. Quite literally.

no, a loose resistance was formed supplying intelligence against the nazis.

[Pie]

Last time the French got upset and rebelled, some heads rolled. Quite literally.

They also threw bakery treats at the enemy...

[Radical Terrorist]

no, a loose resistance was formed supplying intelligence against the nazis.

Was referring more to the French revolution than ww2, but my fault for saying "last time" without quite specifying what "last time" was.

[Dascoo]

no, a loose resistance was formed supplying intelligence against the nazis.

Was referring more to the French revolution than ww2, but my fault for saying "last time" without quite specifying what "last time" was.

The French were fighting the French.

whut

[Radical Terrorist]

The French Nobility was pretty much growing fat off of the taxes and so on from the Not-so-Noble citizenry of France. They also turned a deaf ear to the mobs forming. Eventually the Mobs went to the Bastille (Basically 1780's French version of Guantanamo Bay), tore it down, released the prisoners, then they attacked Versailles. That's when the ever-famous Guillotine made it's debut.
Eventually Led to the Napoleonic Wars and Napoleon Bonaparte who we all know of.


Clarify things?

[Svirin Kerath]

People make fun of us, but we have a lower casualty count in Afghanistan after fighting there longer than the us has been occupying Iraq. Not the best way to judge progress, but it does say something good about us.

That you don't do anything?

The sad thing is that the new's skewed view of the war.

for example, the worst casualties in a month was 5 people in one day, the rest of the month was hardly anything. Philadelphia is more dangerous than Iraq.

There was no month where less than 20 US soldiers were killed. Iraq has averaged about 1,000 U.S. deaths per year, out of only 152,000 troops deployed, to say nothing of "casualties"- maiming and otherwise loss of limbs or faculties. Fatalities alone make about 2% of the entire population of US troops in Iraq. There are the 29,000 or-so who make up the 'wounded,' which means about a 20% casualty rate. This would be equal to about 319,484 Philadelphians killed our wounded since 2003.

To say that any US city is more dangerous is simply erroneous.

[Pie]

I had to look up erroneous before i could understand the point you were making.
You and your big words...

But i'm sure a place like new york would hold those figures or close to?

[tehsnipah]

for america, which country will be the easiest to invade then. don't say one thing, list some countries that are possible

[Lord Frunkamunch]

/mute tehsnipah

Pie, do you honestly believe NY has a twenty percent fatality rate? Even close to that?

[tehsnipah]

screw you frunkamunch...........

[Pie]

/mute tehsnipah

Pie, do you honestly believe NY has a twenty percent fatality rate? Even close to that?

no, I guess not.

[a-4-year-old]

People make fun of us, but we have a lower casualty count in Afghanistan after fighting there longer than the us has been occupying Iraq. Not the best way to judge progress, but it does say something good about us.

That you don't do anything?

The sad thing is that the new's skewed view of the war.

for example, the worst casualties in a month was 5 people in one day, the rest of the month was hardly anything. Philadelphia is more dangerous than Iraq.

There was no month where less than 20 US soldiers were killed. Iraq has averaged about 1,000 U.S. deaths per year, out of only 152,000 troops deployed, to say nothing of "casualties"- maiming and otherwise loss of limbs or faculties. Fatalities alone make about 2% of the entire population of US troops in Iraq. There are the 29,000 or-so who make up the 'wounded,' which means about a 20% casualty rate. This would be equal to about 319,484 Philadelphians killed our wounded since 2003.

To say that any US city is more dangerous is simply erroneous.

5 people in one day was that month's highest fatalities in one day. More over, for every one US soldier killed there are about five insurgents killed. The media entirely ignores victories in conflicts in iraq.

[Radical Terrorist]

Well, there could be a triple homicide in Nevada, but if a US soldier is killed, every news channel is gonna have correspondents in Iraq giving "The full story".

[Dascoo]

for america, which country will be the easiest to invade then. don't say one thing, list some countries that are possible

France.

[Svirin Kerath]

Well, there could be a triple homicide in Nevada, but if a US soldier is killed, every news channel is gonna have correspondents in Iraq giving "The full story".

I disagree, maybe in the first few months of the war that was true. Now:

newscaster: "7 US troops were killed today when a black hawk helicopter was shot down by insurgents in Iraq. Now, let's see what BRITNEY SPEARS is up to!!"
newscaster 2: "LOL!!!!"

5 people in one day was that month's highest fatalities in one day. More over, for every one US soldier killed there are about five insurgents killed. The media entirely ignores victories in conflicts in iraq.

"That month's" being the opportune words. The average number of U.S. troops killed per month is about 80-90. So even if 5 are the most killed in one day, that means 2-3 were killed every other day. And again, you are flagrantly ignoring the number of wounded, who are almost completely ignored by the media, given the high number of them.

Also, you're forgetting that no matter how many people we kill, we are a limited occupational force in a spawning pit for insurgents. We could kill 10 or 15 to each US soldier and it wouldn't make much difference. You're measuring victory in WWI-era terms, not the terms of modern warfare.

Oh, and sorry, Pie:

But i'm sure a place like new york would hold those figures or close to?

NY crime is decreasing rapidly. NY is exponentially safer than Iraq. There's no comparison.