No, not unacceptable

What's an acceptable number of injuries and deaths then?

Becoming? No, I'd say it has been for a long time now. Starting with casualty number 1.

You are all retarded. That what the army is for. Why do think they are constantly practicing the art of combat? So they can sit home and be safe? So we can all just get along? Bullsh*t. Warfare has always been the way of the world and it allways will be we've just forgotten that because the people of this country have gotten soft.

Yeahbecause that big softy Patton remindehis troops.

It's not a soldier's duty to die for his country but to make the other poor b*stard die for HIS country.

Winning wars with blood became redundant in 1916.

Becoming? It already is.

i think the casualty rate among civilians is unacceoptable.

No, that's what a war is about.

"Becoming? It already is."

Sanitarius has a nice militaristic philosophy. Let us all stayed armed to the teeth – safer that way ...

believe it or not this has been on of the Safest wars in History.... Something to think about

Tell that to the 1000 dead and god knows how many injured creeperz.

Yesterday the 1000th soldier died since Bush said mission acomplished.

Try thinking about it from a historical view and not and emotional view and you will see my point.

I see your point creeperz, but I don't agree with it. You cannot compare this war with past wars which have nothing to do with the technology available now or the war tactics.

The number of dead is unacceptable. Not just of the coalition forces though, but all the innocent bystanders too.

“You cannot compare this war with past wars which have nothing to do with the technology available now or the war tactics.
The number of dead is unacceptable. Not just of the coalition forces though, but all the innocent bystanders too.”

That is my point is because the losses then were unacceptable that the Technology we are using now has come in to place.

Try basing your point on historical facts and you might reconsider.
There have been plenty of wars where less than 1000 soldiers on one side have died and less than 10,000 civilians. They don't tend to make a big impact on history though. There have also been many times where situations like this have not ended up as a war.

So you're saying that because less people have died than in previous wars it's all alright?

It's not at all alright. People have still died.

When exactly does it become unacceptable for you creeperz? 10000 dead? A million? How many people have to die for it to be too much?

Yes it is true that some wars have been fought with less then a 1000 Dead.

But if you look at most wars that have Gone on as long as this one has you will be hard pressed to find one that has been less Bloody

“When exactly does it become unacceptable for you creeperz? 10000 dead? A million? How many people have to die for it to be too much?”
It depends on the cause if the cause is something that you believe in then there is no unacceptable number. BTW I was against this war but for Different reason then People Dieing. No Matter how weird that Sounds.

Seeing as it was in my opinion an unjust war then i think it's unacceptable creeperz.

Then if you truly believe that then there is nothing I or anyone else can say to dissuade you. I was just giving a Different point of view then the one that I see most the time on the forums here. That and I’m at work and need something to keep me awake

Yeah no worries, i've only been at work for 1 1/2 hours and i'm struggling to stay awake.

Get a coffee.

On my 6th 20oz Cup of Coffee