5 more die in Iraq

[Popeye]

That's 17 soldiers killed since Sunday. Meanwhile, Gen. Betrayus is testifying before Congress that everything is under control. Plus, we've got John McCain the 100 year man (that's how long he wants to stay in Iraq, not his age) saying how great things are. Well not so fast, we need a president who's going to put an end to, what has become, one of the biggest blunders in US history.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq/2008-04-09-iraq-soldiers_N.htm

 

[pocketfullofshells]

17 in a week...you know in most wars....17 in a hour is good...17 a min happens A few hundred in sec's happens....And the Reason why it flaired up, Becuse they finnaly tried to clamp down on some of the Milita's...Somthing we need them to do, and Iraq needs to have happen to keep it from going out of Control when we do get out.

And the 100 years....Stop listing to stump speeches by Clinton and Obama about that, and go listen to what he actually said. Guess what we may be there 100 years, we have been in Korea for quite a long time, and we are still in Germany and Japan....that's what he was talking about, not fighting this war 100 years from now. As it stands right now I would take McCain's Iraq policy over Clinton or Obama's...as I don't even know what they would do, and from what they hint at, I see it leading to far worse problems then we have today. Do I think McCain's plain if flawless, no, but its at least better.

_side note not directed at you---

I can understand why people against this war from the start see numbers like 4000 dead and think what a wast.....Its those who supported it from the start but now say 4000 dead it was not worth it, and I changed my mine we lost to many people......IF Saddam had the WMD we said he did, and he had actually used them, 4000 would sound very small right now. Shows to me that you ( and I don't mean you specifically on this) did not put the full thought into this that you should have given what was and is at stake.

 

[Bunz]

17 in a week...you know in most wars....17 in a hour is good...17 a min happens A few hundred in sec's happens....And the Reason why it flaired up, Becuse they finnaly tried to clamp down on some of the Milita's...Somthing we need them to do, and Iraq needs to have happen to keep it from going out of Control when we do get out.

And the 100 years....Stop listing to stump speeches by Clinton and Obama about that, and go listen to what he actually said. Guess what we may be there 100 years, we have been in Korea for quite a long time, and we are still in Germany and Japan....that's what he was talking about, not fighting this war 100 years from now. As it stands right now I would take McCain's Iraq policy over Clinton or Obama's...as I don't even know what they would do, and from what they hint at, I see it leading to far worse problems then we have today. Do I think McCain's plain if flawless, no, but its at least better.

_side note not directed at you---

I can understand why people against this war from the start see numbers like 4000 dead and think what a wast.....Its those who supported it from the start but now say 4000 dead it was not worth it, and I changed my mine we lost to many people......IF Saddam had the WMD we said he did, and he had actually used them, 4000 would sound very small right now. Shows to me that you ( and I don't mean you specifically on this) did not put the full thought into this that you should have given what was and is at stake.

Hi there PFOS,
A big point I will mention. Since WWII, the US has spent potentially 10s of trillions of dollars to minimize US casualties in times of military conflict.
We have the best training and equipment and professional soldiers the wold has ever known. Our military would win the Tour de France 25x in a row. The only thing that can cause our military to fail, is its civilian leadership.
Now one can blame a democrat controlled congress for all this. But really how can we continue to justify our current involvement there?

 

[Popeye]

17 in a week...you know in most wars....17 in a hour is good...17 a min happens A few hundred in sec's happens....And the Reason why it flaired up, Becuse they finnaly tried to clamp down on some of the Milita's...Somthing we need them to do, and Iraq needs to have happen to keep it from going out of Control when we do get out.

And the 100 years....Stop listing to stump speeches by Clinton and Obama about that, and go listen to what he actually said. Guess what we may be there 100 years, we have been in Korea for quite a long time, and we are still in Germany and Japan....that's what he was talking about, not fighting this war 100 years from now. As it stands right now I would take McCain's Iraq policy over Clinton or Obama's...as I don't even know what they would do, and from what they hint at, I see it leading to far worse problems then we have today. Do I think McCain's plain if flawless, no, but its at least better.

_side note not directed at you---

I can understand why people against this war from the start see numbers like 4000 dead and think what a wast.....Its those who supported it from the start but now say 4000 dead it was not worth it, and I changed my mine we lost to many people......IF Saddam had the WMD we said he did, and he had actually used them, 4000 would sound very small right now. Shows to me that you ( and I don't mean you specifically on this) did not put the full thought into this that you should have given what was and is at stake.

I'm glad it's not directed at me, because I've never supported this war. A war that, if you remember, was sold to the American people by claiming Saddam had WMDs and was a direct threat to our national security. All of it was embellishments, half truths, and outright BS.

Over the years, the reasons for being there have changed whenever it suited the administration to do so. Over 4000 Americans dead over 60,000 seriously wounded, in a war that didn't have to be fought. Every single life has been wasted.

 

[The Scotsman]

The only thing that can cause our military to fail, is its civilian leadership.

Alas so true.

When politicians start believing thay can play soldiers for want of anything better to do they become dangerous animals to the extent of breeding idiots like the US had during Vietnam - Robert McNamara the Ford beancounter - what a tosser he was

The war was a waste of time from the start but whats done's done and I assume that its' been debated here ad nauseum? Anyway I feel sorry for the sqaddies as they have to do what they are told and to be at the beck and call of the present crop of politicians - Christ I dispare. The these baffoons Bush, Rumsfeld and and and......all a waste of sperm the lot of them!

Mind you I admire the back-up the US troops get. Great kit, good training and for those unfortunate enough to get wounded the medical facilities are top class. Our lads on the other hand are getting so badly let down by our politicians with crap logistics, kit that's not up to the job - and a part time Defense Secretary!!??

oh.....sorry, I'm havering.......

 

[Libsmasher]

That's 17 soldiers killed since Sunday. Meanwhile, Gen. Betrayus is testifying before Congress that everything is under control. Plus, we've got John McCain the 100 year man (that's how long he wants to stay in Iraq, not his age) saying how great things are. Well not so fast, we need a president who's going to put an end to, what has become, one of the biggest blunders in US history.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq/2008-04-09-iraq-soldiers_N.htm

About the rate people are killed in LA from gang warfare - so what?

How long has the US stayed in Korea since the beginning of the korean war?

58 years.

How long has the US stayed in europe starting with WWII?

64 years.

 

[Bunz]

About the rate people are killed in LA from gang warfare - so what?

Tell that to families of those good men who wont be coming home.

 

[Bunz]

How long has the US stayed in Korea since the beginning of the korean war?

58 years.

How long has the US stayed in europe starting with WWII?

64 years.

How long did the US actually fight in Korea?

3 years

How long did the US actually fight in WWII?
4 years

How long in Iraq?

5 years without an end in sight.

 

[Libsmasher]

Tell that to families of those good men who wont be coming home.

Yes yes - for individual families, it's a personal tragedy, but do you have any other point? People get killed in wars - not news.

 

[Libsmasher]

How long did the US actually fight in Korea?

3 years

How long did the US actually fight in WWII?
4 years

How long in Iraq?

5 years without an end in sight.

Those were conventional wars, not insurgencies. Eg, the (successful) British campaign against malaysian insurgents lasted 12 years. The "no end in sight" is just appeaser propaganda - improvement is being made all the time, and the point will come when the iraqis can take over. Nobody can predict exactly when, just as nobody has ever predicted the exact end of any war.

 

[Popeye]

Those were conventional wars, not insurgencies. Eg, the (successful) British campaign against malaysian insurgents lasted 12 years. The "no end in sight" is just appeaser propaganda - improvement is being made all the time, and the point will come when the iraqis can take over. Nobody can predict exactly when, just as nobody has ever predicted the exact end of any war.

This war was built on a false premise. Iraq posed no threat and, even if they did, Israel would have taken care of them. People don't like to hear it, but it's true.. 4032 American lives have been wasted, they have died for nothing.

http://www.antiwar.com/casualties/

 

[Libsmasher]

This war was built on a false premise. Iraq posed no threat and, even if they did, Israel would have taken care of them. People don't like to hear it, but it's true.. 4032 American lives have been wasted, they have died for nothing.

http://www.antiwar.com/casualties/

Completely unsupportable. If Saddam didn't have WMDs, he surely would have gotten them. To leave this loose cannon in such a critical part of the world would have been foolish.

 

[Bunz]

Those were conventional wars, not insurgencies. Eg, the (successful) British campaign against malaysian insurgents lasted 12 years. The "no end in sight" is just appeaser propaganda - improvement is being made all the time, and the point will come when the iraqis can take over. Nobody can predict exactly when, just as nobody has ever predicted the exact end of any war.

Yes yes - for individual families, it's a personal tragedy, but do you have any other point? People get killed in wars - not news

Typical, in back to back posts you call the situation a war and then an insurgency. Which is it? I like how it gets twisted to suit the argument of the right.

In the meantime, I would say that while there might be improvements, but the reason for this thread of new heavy fighting in Baghdad would say the situation is not improving. Basra has been relatively quiet compared to other areas. There was heavy fighting there recently. The Iraqi government is inept and so is the Iraqi security force.
So tell me what is the end game? The only vision I can think of is electing a democrat and pulling out more and more troops. I do support three permanent bases there. But I support the Biden plan, which is to end the combat role.
The notion that we will continue to committ troops and treasure indefinatly is absurd.

 

[pocketfullofshells]

I am not going to sit and claim I was against the war from the start, but i also cant say i was for it . I was more in the middle seeing merits to do it, but cautioning that there was a heavy price to pay if we did, and that to many where overlooking it thinking it would be easy. I also more and more doubted the claims of WMD and I said from the start if we did go in, plans had to be in place to deal with Basil everything that has happened so far that we clearly did not plan for. I stated from the start it would be hard, and we would have to deal with a Insurgency funded from inside Iraq and also From Iran and Other groups..possibly even seeing Iran's troops moving in . 4000 Dead is a shame, how the war was fought, Pitiful...who is the blame? Dems for not pushing harder to make sure Bush had a plan before they voted and for trusting him to much...but really The Republicans are the ones who went to war, and made the plans that have failed...Dems just are the ones who saw how bad it was going first.
I do find it funny how people can blame the party not in power for so many F ups buy those who actually did the plans, had the power , and made the call to go in. Those who failed to see the insurance for what it was for more then a year after it was gaining power.

But in the end one has to understand that this nation chose to go to war, and to believe that it would be over so fast or with so few casualties as some seem to believe it should have, is to live in a fairy tail land.

In the end I dont think pulling out will help anything, but rather make things worse. If we do, I hope to god I am wrong. But like much of how this war has gone, that has been rare, though I am always happy when i am, because it normaly has ment something good for us. I think the surge was the right idea from a military and Security standpoint...Where we have failed is the political end, that we should have known would be the hardest part from the start.

 

[pocketfullofshells]

Typical, in back to back posts you call the situation a war and then an insurgency. Which is it? I like how it gets twisted to suit the argument of the right.

In the meantime, I would say that while there might be improvements, but the reason for this thread of new heavy fighting in Baghdad would say the situation is not improving. Basra has been relatively quiet compared to other areas. There was heavy fighting there recently. The Iraqi government is inept and so is the Iraqi security force.
So tell me what is the end game? The only vision I can think of is electing a democrat and pulling out more and more troops. I do support three permanent bases there. But I support the Biden plan, which is to end the combat role.
The notion that we will continue to committ troops and treasure indefinatly is absurd.

Well it is both, it was a war, and has turned into a Insurgancy.
Both due to same conflict.