Intermarkets' Privacy Policy
Support


Donate to Ace of Spades HQ!


Contact
Ace:
aceofspadeshq at gee mail.com
Buck:
buck.throckmorton at protonmail.com
CBD:
cbd at cutjibnewsletter.com
joe mannix:
mannix2024 at proton.me
MisHum:
petmorons at gee mail.com
J.J. Sefton:
sefton at cutjibnewsletter.com


Recent Entries
Absent Friends
Captain Whitebread 2026
Jon Ekdahl 2026
Jay Guevara 2025
Jim Sunk New Dawn 2025
Jewells45 2025
Bandersnatch 2024
GnuBreed 2024
Captain Hate 2023
moon_over_vermont 2023
westminsterdogshow 2023
Ann Wilson(Empire1) 2022
Dave In Texas 2022
Jesse in D.C. 2022
OregonMuse 2022
redc1c4 2021
Tami 2021
Chavez the Hugo 2020
Ibguy 2020
Rickl 2019
Joffen 2014
AoSHQ Writers Group
A site for members of the Horde to post their stories seeking beta readers, editing help, brainstorming, and story ideas. Also to share links to potential publishing outlets, writing help sites, and videos posting tips to get published. Contact OrangeEnt for info:
maildrop62 at proton dot me
Cutting The Cord And Email Security
Moron Meet-Ups

Texas MoMe 2026: 10/16/2026-10/17/2026 Corsicana,TX
Contact Ben Had for info





















« Drama Queens: Snivelling High School Punks Want to Call for Bush's Death at Talent Show | Main | Chris Matthews: Terrorists "not bad guys especially, they're just people who disagree with you" »
November 16, 2004

Iraqi Minister: 1,600 Terrorists Killed in Fallujah

Al Jazeera has a different theory: They were all poisoned by those cunning Israelis.

1,600 is a nice number. A nicer number is "10,000." Nice and round and voluptuous.


posted by Ace at 03:21 PM
Comments



1,600? It could have been more. The total killed could have been 16,000 or 160,000 it wouldn't matter. We still would have gone in and rocked em clean. And we STILL would have been right for doing so. It's our Nation's duty to protect its citizens lives.

Quote: "Most civilians are believed to have fled Falluja ahead of the offensive, some of them to nearby villages. Daoud said more than 90 percent had left.."

If this is the case then we could have spared the lives of 34 U.S. Soldiers. We should've rained fire from the sky. Turned the place into molten glass. Non-nuclear of course. 75 to 100 MOABS would have done it. Expensive? Yes, but far cheaper than the lives of 34 U.S. Soldiers that we can never bring back.

Posted by: Joseph McLaughlin on November 16, 2004 03:38 PM

McLaughlin - You have to accept that war means American casualties. You can't win by safely bombing from the air. You must go in, shed blood, and root the enemy out. If you are looking for magic high tech weapons to avoid all US casualties - you lose.

As it was we had a 47:1 kill ratio advantage, and we nailed many of the assholes that killed our guys, foreign & Iraqi civilians before with suicide car bombs, IEDs, and mortar attacks. Our rate of taking casualties in a war as important to our security as WWII - is 1/400th the rate US soldiers fell in WWII.

We cherish our guys in uniform precisely because they may suffer and die for us - but we should never hesitate to send them in harm's way if our nation's security depends on it. The opposite way of thinking - that nothing is worth the life of a single soldier - is what allowed Hitler to rise, Vietnam to fall, and 9/11 to happen.

Posted by: Cedarford on November 16, 2004 05:26 PM

Cedarford, occasionally you actually sound reasonable.

Posted by: The Black Republican on November 16, 2004 07:40 PM

Cedarford - First I understand that you can't fight a war like Clinton tried to lobbing cruise missiles at the enemy. And yes I know that you have to get down in the dirt and fight the enemy face to face.

Second, I also understand the ratios that we have. I can't even believe you mentioned that. Hello, what do I need a history lesson? I know how many died in Vietnam WWII. Yes, we have excellent ratios compared to those wars.

My point was simply, that if we would have bombed the hell out of them (more than we did) we would have killed a lot more of them, perhaps saving more U.S. lives than we lost. After the bombs are dropped, then we go in and route out the rest of them. And that's just what we did in Falluja. I just wanted to see more bombs fall. But with the U.S. footing the bill for the reconstruction effort that works against them only costing them more in rebuilding.

Posted by: Joseph McLaughlin on November 17, 2004 10:51 AM

Bit of Fallujah satire;

http://blamebush.typepad.com/blamebush/2004/11/httpnewsyahooco.html

Posted by: lauraw on November 18, 2004 11:00 AM
Post a comment
Name:


Email Address:


URL:


Comments:


Remember info?








Now Available!
The Deplorable Gourmet
A Horde-sourced Cookbook
[All profits go to charity]
Top Headlines
"It's f**king f**ked."
-- reportedly a genuine comment offered by a "senior Labour source"
Correction: I wrote that Labour is losing 88% (now 87%) of the seats it is "defending." I think that's wrong. The right way to say it is the seats they are contesting -- that is, they don't necessarily already hold these seats, but they have put up a candidate to run for the seat. It's still very bad but not as bad as losing 87% of the seats they already held.
Basil the Great
@BasilTheGreat

🚨ED MILIBAND [a Minister in Starmer's government] SAYS KEIR STARMER WILL RESIGN AS PRIME MINISTER

He has reportedly reassured Labour MP's that Starmer will be resigning following the disastrous results tonight

It's over
"The end of the two party system in the UK" as first the Fake Conservatives and now Labour chooses political suicide rather than simply STOPPING THE INVASION
Incidentally, the only reason this didn't already happen in the US is because of the Very Bad Orange Man (who is right on 85% of all policy calls and extremely, existentially right on 15% of them)
No political party that is NOT also a doomsday religious cult would EVER choose a cataclysmic loss -- and possible extinction as a party -- to support a toxically unpopular favoritism of NON-CITIZEN ILLEGAL MIGRANTS over actual citizen voters.

Only a cult does this.
Now they've lost 84%.
Annunziata Rees-Mogg
@zatzi
If this continues Labour loses 2,148 seats tonight.

That is much worse than the worst case predictions I’ve seen.

Cataclysmic

Update: They've now lost 88% of the seats they're defending. As I mentioned earlier, I think I heard that London will not bail them out, as many of those Labour seats will probably flip to "Muslim Independent" or Green. Detroit's 5am vote will not save them.
Yup, Labour is losing 80% of its seats...
The British Patriot
@TheBritLad

🚨 BREAKING: Labour have lost 80% of all seats contested as of 2:25 AM.<
br> If this continues, Keir Starmer will be out of office next week.

Reform has surged and projected to pick up between 1700-2100 seats.


Wow, up to 1700-2100 seats. It's not incredible that this is happening. It's incredible that the Davos crowd is so absolutely determined to privilege Muslim "migrants" over the actual native population who elects them, no matter how loudly the natives scream that they want to be prioritized, that they will gladly self-extinguish as a party rather than simply representing the interests of their own voters. Astonishing.
Remember, when they call other people "cultists" -- they are the ones so imprisoned in their social reinforcement and discipline bubbles that they will choose political death rather than dare upset the Karen Enforcement Officers of their cult.
Update: Now they've lost 83% of the seats they were defending.
(((Dan Hodges)))
@DPJHodges

Reform are basically wiping Labour out in the North. It's not a defeat. It's not even a rout. Labour are simply ceasing to exist.


Nick Lowles
@lowles_nick

Tonight’s results are calamitous for Labour. Not just for Keir Starmer's leadership, but for the very future of the party
STARMERGEDDON: In early returns, Reform gains 135 seats, Labour loses 90, the Fake Conservatives lose 36 (and I didn't even know they could fall any further), the Lib Dems lose 4, and the Greens gain 6. Note that the only other party gaining seats is the Greens and they're only gaining a handful of seats.
Update: Reform now up 145, Labour down 98.
Labour projected to lose Wales -- where they've ruled for 27 years.
Fulton County Georgia just discovered 400 boxes of ballots for Labour
Update: REF +156, LAB -107, CON -45
Brutal: In four out of five council seats where Labour is defending, they've lost. 80%.
I'm sure it's not this simple, but Reform is straight taking Labour's and the "Conservatives'" seats. They've lost almost exactly what Reform gained. If understand this right (and warning, I probably don't), all of London's council seats are up for election, and Labour might lose hugely there, as their old voters abandon them for Reform, Muslim Indenpendents, and the Greens.
REF +190, LAB -134, CON -56.
Updates on the Labour collapse in council elections -- which wags are calling #Starmergeddon -- from Beege Welborne. There are about 5000 seats up for grabs, Labour is expected to lose 1,800, Reform will probably gain 1,580, up from... zero. So this would be more than that.
People claim that while Labour has adopted the Sharia Agenda to appeal to the million Muslims it allowed to migrate to the country, those voters are ditching Labour to vote for the Muslim Independent Party or the Greens. Delicious. This shadenfreude is going straight to my thighs.
Oh, and if Starmer loses about as badly as expected, Labour will toss him out of a window Braveheart style and replace him. He will announce he is resigning to spend more time with his Gay Ukrainian Male Prostitutes.
Media bias and senationalism are as old as, well, the media:
spidermanthreatormenace.jpg

That was written by Denny O'Neill and illustrated by, get this, Frank Miller. Editor to the Stars Jim Shooter was in charge at the time.
I always thought the gag was original to the comic book, but in fact the "Threat or Menace" headline was a satirical joke about media bias and sensationalism for a long while. The Harvard Lampoon used it in a parody of Life magazine: "Flying Saucers: Threat or Menace?"
CJN podcast 1400 copy.jpg
Podcast: Starting a new season, CBD and Sefton discuss their personal journeys to conservative principles, is Nick Shirley the beginning of a trend?, Iran trying to reignite the war, the Left attacks itself, even on "Best Guitarist" lists, and more!
Leftists who have been drawing Frankendistricts for decades are suddenly upset about Republican line-drawing
Socialist usurper Obama cut commercials urging Virginians to vote for the bizarre "lobster" gerrymander -- but now says gerrymanders are so racist you guys
Obama is complaining about the new Louisiana map -- but here's the thing, the new map has much more compact and rational borders than the old racial gerrymander map
Pete Bootyjudge is whining too. But here's the Illinois gerrymander he supports.
Big Bonus! Under the new Florida congressional map, Debbie Wasserman Schultz will probably lose her seat
And she can't even go on The View because she's ugly a clump of stranger's hair in the bath-drain
Recent Comments
Oldcat: "Why do some eat fish on Friday ? Posted by: Cl ..."

Stateless - He ain't heavy, he's my dog: "I LOVE AND ADORE OBAMA'S LIBRARY OF DOOM! I wan ..."

nerdygirl: "Mboob is a male? That would be a good name for on ..."

buddhaha: "Mesh bag, weights, ocean. No.muss,no fuss,and crab ..."

Mister Scott (Formerly GWS): "That's a whole lot of charts and graphs. ..."

FenelonSpoke: "The rug is not really the most important thing, bu ..."

Clue Bat: "[i]Why would anybody bow down on a fucking rug to ..."

nerdygirl: "A water park day could include some of those prote ..."

Kareem of Wheat: "Is Baboucarr Mboob a character from the new Star W ..."

Skip: "Fking Marxists lie with the ease you breath ..."

nerdygirl: "Wait. Black Baptists can't go? They should protest ..."

Frank Barone: " Learing Center? I'm surprised they didn't st ..."

Bloggers in Arms
Some Humorous Asides
Archives