24 dead american soldiers

jlew24asu

Abuskedti wrote:

We are the factor that has them angry.

you really believe that? you believe that a shiite kills a sunni out of spit becuase americans are there?

Abuskedti wrote:

We are the once that destroyed their military leaving their country without security. the do not want to play along with our game - and there is no security to stop the criminal element to thrive and create this situation.

again, you really dont hold Iraqis accountable for their own actions. why not?

Abuskedti wrote:

We leave and Iraqis will fight for power - someone will win and provide security and a country again.

so you support civil war. ok I dont

Abuskedti wrote:

We are not providing security at all - there is absolutely no security anywhere in Iraq outside the green zone.

you sound like you have been there.

jlew24asu

Cosmo wrote:

...
U.S. troops en route... from where?

I dont know. I got that information from the article....The attacks came as US troops arrived on a mission to boost security in a country racked by sectarian violence.

Cosmo wrote:

Why couldn't Iraqi Forces (Bush/Rumsfeld claim there are 320,000 of them) be dispatched? Were U.S. Forces the closest? If so, how could they have stopped it (the explosion)?

I dont know I wasnt there. I also didnt write the article

Cosmo wrote:

I don't get it... people say, "Oh there will be 100,000 Iraqi deaths if we leave..." there will be 100,000 Iraqi deaths if we stay... albeit, the latter will occur throughout a longer period... but, those fuckers are bent on killing each other, regardless of what we want them to do.

well at least you didnt blame the US for them killing each other

Abuskedti

jlew24asu wrote:

you really believe that? you believe that a shiite kills a sunni out of spit becuase americans are there?
again, you really dont hold Iraqis accountable for their own actions. why not?

so you support civil war. ok I dont

you sound like you have been there.

I don't support Civil War... We demolished Iraq and left them without government. We can claim it as a state of leave it for someone else to claim. i imagine that you'd agree it belongs to Iraq - they will have to fight to create a government just like absolutely every other government in existance. They have to do so because we distroyed the one they built.

Yes, I believe, in large part - most of the killings are an attempt to ensure that the United States doesn't turn Iraq into the 51st state. They have their differences, but will work them out.

We owe Iraq protection from being occupied by some other country - the only other thing we owe them is the freedom to build their own country.

The civil war is a necessity created by our invasion - we and they have no choice but to live with that -

Cosmo

jlew24asu wrote:

I dont know. I got that information from the article....The attacks came as US troops arrived on a mission to boost security in a country racked by sectarian violence.

I dont know I wasnt there. I also didnt write the article


well at least you didnt blame the US for them killing each other

...
So, the article referred to the additional forces President Bush has allocated to Iraq. By 'en route', meaning en route from Fort Bragg... no way to stop the bombing.
And it is true... outside of the Green Zone is dangerous. That's why you don't see Club Med vacation packages to Baghdad. Ask the soldiers who have been there... would they wander through the streets and market places during their down time... in their civies? No. They stay in the Green Zone... where it is safer. The increased number needs an updated task. More soldiers doing the same thing is not going to yield any significant results. Bush neds to Declare Combat Operations to commense and take the handcuffs off of our guys and allow the soldiers to be soldiers.
And no... I don't blame American Troops for the car bombs. But, I do claim responsibility of the overall climate on our screwed up military action. The way it is now, we're making Saddam Hussein's Iraq look like Disneyland in comparason... like the Disneyland that didn't let long haired hippies in and had them arrested in the parking lots. We HAVE to own up to our responsibility and role in this mess. To do otherwise is un-American... and basically, being a puss. We broke the shit... we bought it.

american

In 2005, 156 policemen died in the line of duty. Should we stop policing the nation so that these needless deaths can be prevented?

mammasan

american wrote:

In 2005, 156 policemen died in the line of duty. Should we stop policing the nation so that these needless deaths can be prevented?

You are comparing apples to oranges here. We need the police to protect citizens from harm. They are a necessity, but our invasion/presense in Iraq was not a necessity.

american

mammasan wrote:

You are comparing apples to oranges here. We need the police to protect citizens from harm. They are a necessity, but our invasion/presense in Iraq was not a necessity.

Not a necessity according to you. According to Congress, it was a necessity. They overwhelmingly voted in favor of it. My point in that comparison was to point out that just because soldiers are dying doesn't mean we should pack it up and pull out. All of you opposed to the war should start offering up better reasons than troop deaths and hating Bush. Those excuses are weak and easily refuted.

jlew24asu

edit

mammasan

american wrote:

Not a necessity according to you. According to Congress, it was a necessity. They overwhelmingly voted in favor of it. My point in that comparison was to point out that just because soldiers are dying doesn't mean we should pack it up and pull out. All of you opposed to the war should start offering up better reasons than troop deaths and hating Bush. Those excuses are weak and easily refuted.

Well as far as Congress just look at my sig and you will see what I think about them. No we shouldn't pull out because of troop deaths or because Bush is the worst President in modern times. We should pull out because the Iraqi government is unwilling to do what it takes to secure their country and move forward with national reunification. Why should our troops keep dying for a country that has no intention of ending the sectarian violence? I say if the Iraqi government does not make significant progress in reigning in the militias, insurgents, and death squads and putting aside sectarian loyalties in favor of national reunification by the beginning of summer we pack it up and get out. Let them sort their own shit out.

jlew24asu

Cosmo wrote:

...
So, the article referred to the additional forces President Bush has allocated to Iraq. By 'en route', meaning en route from Fort Bragg... no way to stop the bombing.

right extra security could have prevented such an attack

Cosmo wrote:

And it is true... outside of the Green Zone is dangerous. That's why you don't see Club Med vacation packages to Baghdad.

yea that or the fact that the country is at war.

Cosmo wrote:

. More soldiers doing the same thing is not going to yield any significant results. Bush neds to Declare Combat Operations to commense and take the handcuffs off of our guys and allow the soldiers to be soldiers.

what do you mean? end combat operations and let soldiers be soldiers. I thought soldiers are soldiers when they are in combat. so which is it? its a rhetorical question. I dont need a 500 words cosmo essay

Cosmo wrote:

And no... I don't blame American Troops for the car bombs. But, I do claim responsibility of the overall climate on our screwed up military action. The way it is now, we're making Saddam Hussein's Iraq look like Disneyland in comparason... like the Disneyland that didn't let long haired hippies in and had them arrested in the parking lots. We HAVE to own up to our responsibility and role in this mess. To do otherwise is un-American... and basically, being a puss. We broke the shit... we bought it.

so do we stay and fix it or leave? thats a good one. Saddams Iraq like disneyland. what a dumb thing to say. so many people would love to have him back in power. I dont understand that

american

mammasan wrote:

Well as far as Congress just look at my sig and you will see what I think about them. No we shouldn't pull out because of troop deaths or because Bush is the worst President in modern times. We should pull out because the Iraqi government is unwilling to do what it takes to secure their country and move forward with national reunification. Why should our troops keep dying for a country that has no intention of ending the sectarian violence? I say if the Iraqi government does not make significant progress in reigning in the militias, insurgents, and death squads and putting aside sectarian loyalties in favor of national reunification by the beginning of summer we pack it up and get out. Let them sort their own shit out.

Stating that the Iraqi government is unwilling is a regurgitation of what is reported by most of the media. And while they may be right, I don't beleive that is the case. I agree with most of your last comment. Iraqis do need to make significant progress soon.

mammasan

american wrote:

Stating that the Iraqi government is unwilling is a regurgitation of what is reported by most of the media. And while they may be right, I don't beleive that is the case. I agree with most of your last comment. Iraqis do need to make significant progress soon.

No it's not merely a regurgitation of the media. It is what has been stated by almost every Middle East expert on this planet. You have most of the ministries within the government under the control of some secterian group. Finances are being funneled along sectarian lines and up until this week Malaki has done absolutely nothing to curb Shia militias. You have military personel and police personel who are unwilling to carry out missions in certain areas because of their loyalties and these men are not in the minority. The Iraqi government has been infiltrated to it's core by sectarian groups who only want to look out for themselves and those loyal to them. Malaki himself has received massive support from Muqtada al-Sadr. Do you really think he is going to bite the hand that feeds him? If the Iraqi government is willing to uphold it's end of the deal then we should see it through but if they keep on falling short, as they have been, I say it's time to pull out. We give them a realistic timeline to meet certain objectives such as reducing government support for militias, insurgent groups, and death squads and bringing all parties to the table to discuss national reunification. If these goals are not met, because of Iraqi unwillingness, by the stated deadline then they are on their own.

american

mammasan wrote:

No it's not merely a regurgitation of the media. It is what has been stated by almost every Middle East expert on this planet. You have most of the ministries within the government under the control of some secterian group. Finances are being funneled along sectarian lines and up until this week Malaki has done absolutely nothing to curb Shia militias. You have military personel and police personel who are unwilling to carry out missions in certain areas because of their loyalties and these men are not in the minority. The Iraqi government has been infiltrated to it's core by sectarian groups who only want to look out for themselves and those loyal to them. Malaki himself has received massive support from Muqtada al-Sadr. Do you really think he is going to bite the hand that feeds him? If the Iraqi government is willing to uphold it's end of the deal then we should see it through but if they keep on falling short, as they have been, I say it's time to pull out. We give them a realistic timeline to meet certain objectives such as reducing government support for militias, insurgent groups, and death squads and bringing all parties to the table to discuss national reunification. If these goals are not met, because of Iraqi unwillingness, by the stated deadline then they are on their own.

I have to doubt that you have heard almost every Middle East expert's opinion. However, unlike some anti-war veiws, yours in my opinion is a responsible one. Others including myself may not agree with it, but it is one based in reason and I can respect that. Rather than getting into a full on debate, it was only my point to point out that troop death figures are a weak excuse for pulling out.

Cosmo

jlew24asu wrote:

right extra security could have prevented such an attack

yea that or the fact that the country is at war.

what do you mean? end combat operations and let soldiers be soldiers. I thought soldiers are soldiers when they are in combat. so which is it? its a rhetorical question. I dont need a 500 words cosmo essay

so do we stay and fix it or leave? thats a good one. Saddams Iraq like disneyland. what a dumb thing to say. so many people would love to have him back in power. I dont understand that

...
The article refers to the additional troops allocated by Bush. I questioned... how could the additional troops being flown in from U.S., European or Middle Eastern countries have stopped the bombing? There are already 140,000 troops stationed there... why couldn't they stop it?
I'll tell you why... because they couldn't. No one could stop the bombing. They go off anywhere, without warning. How do you expect our troops to stop something they are unaware of?
...
Soldiers are supposed to be soldiers... but, we are asking our soldiers to be cops. That is because President Bush declared combat operations completed, therefore, changing the role of our military there. If you believe it to be a war, then delcare it a war. Let them to immediately return incoming fire instead of having to mount a raid party to go an 'investigate' the firing position? Why support a policy that takes away the ability of our soldiers to act as soldiers?
...
Saddam was contained and under surveillance. There was no way he could mobilize his army (what was left of it) to threaten his neighbors or anyone. Yeah, he was an asshole, but his Iron Fist kept a tighter lid on the sectarian violence that we are. Maybe Iraqis NEED someone to rule over them with an Iron Fist... replace a Sunni Hussein with an Shi'ite al Sadr and what do you have? The same fucking thing. The power vaccuum and Civil War that early war supporters predicted would happen 3 years ago... if we had left then... came to be true, even with our presense.
Do you support this war now... I know you did in the past. But, with things as they are today... do you still support the current tactics with the current level of our involvement or not?
I wish we could leave... but, we can't. We can leave when we fix the shit we fucked up. And the way we're doing it isn't doing much of anything.

mammasan

american wrote:

I have to doubt that you have heard almost every Middle East expert's opinion.

No I haven't but I have read enough reports, including the Iraq Study Group's report which includes the input of many of these experts, to believe their assesment of the conditions in Iraq. Their assesment of the situation in Iraq is based on knowledge, understanding and experience that all of us on this board combined do not possess. Regardless of our opinion of wether this war should have or shouldn't have been fought, I'm pretty sure we can all agree that Iraq is not doing enough to establish and secure their country. It is their country and if they are unwilling to do what is necessary to secure their future why should we.

duncan in the sand

american wrote:

In 2005, 156 policemen died in the line of duty. Should we stop policing the nation so that these needless deaths can be prevented?

I stopped posting stuff because of moronic statements from assholes like this. I guess I can continue on this path.

american

duncan in the sand wrote:

I stopped posting stuff because of moronic statements from assholes like this. I guess I can continue on this path.

LOL!!! GOOD!! I've already explained the point of this post earlier in this thread. But of course, that doesn't matter to you now does it?

jlew24asu

duncan in the sand wrote:

I stopped posting stuff because of moronic statements from assholes like this. I guess I can continue on this path.

with 85 posts I can tell your a seasoned veteran. hopefully your ban is permanent this time

Cosmo

american wrote:

Not a necessity according to you. According to Congress, it was a necessity. They overwhelmingly voted in favor of it. My point in that comparison was to point out that just because soldiers are dying doesn't mean we should pack it up and pull out. All of you opposed to the war should start offering up better reasons than troop deaths and hating Bush. Those excuses are weak and easily refuted.

...
Okay... here you go...
Because the violence there has evolved into Iraqi on Iraqi violence. What do our troops do... pick a side? Which side? The one that is in charge and aligned with Iran.. so we become iran's ally... or the ones not in charge... so we oppose the 'democratic' government we installed? If we choose a side... there is a great possibility that the side we choose will conduct an ethnic cleansing of their opponents. I do not want the U.S. involved with any type of genocide. And... If we aren't going to do anything... why are we even there?
And I heard the arguements in 2004 when war supporters, like youself, said that our withdrawal would lead to chaos and civil war. Well, our staying hasn't prevented chaos and civil war... has it?
Our troops are tasked police work. Incoming mortar rounds cannot be immediately returned. Instead, they have to mount a 'raid party' to the launch site and by the time they get there... the ones who lobbed the rockets in are gone and the residents claim they didn't see anything. If our troops are there to fight... let them fight.
Finally... President Bush and former Secretary Rumsfeld brag about 320,000 'trainned Iraqi Forces'... where are they? A coalition of 460,000 U.S./Iraqi troops can't stop this violence? How many troops can?
...
There you go.

american

Cosmo wrote:

...
Okay... here you go...
Because the violence there has evolved into Iraqi on Iraqi violence. What do our troops do... pick a side? Which side? The one that is in charge and aligned with Iran.. so we become iran's ally... or the ones not in charge... so we oppose the 'democratic' government we installed? If we choose a side... there is a great possibility that the side we choose will conduct an ethnic cleansing of their opponents. I do not want the U.S. involved with any type of genocide. And... If we aren't going to do anything... why are we even there?
And I heard the arguements in 2004 when war supporters, like youself, said that our withdrawal would lead to chaos and civil war. Well, our staying hasn't prevented chaos and civil war... has it?
Our troops are tasked police work. Incoming mortar rounds cannot be immediately returned. Instead, they have to mount a 'raid party' to the launch site and by the time they get there... the ones who lobbed the rockets in are gone and the residents claim they didn't see anything. If our troops are there to fight... let them fight.
Finally... President Bush and former Secretary Rumsfeld brag about 320,000 'trainned Iraqi Forces'... where are they? A coalition of 460,000 U.S./Iraqi troops can't stop this violence? How many troops can?
...
There you go.

Iraqi on Iraqi violence is the only violence in Iraq. Wrong.
We installed a government in Iraq. Wrong.
I said/posted that withdrawal from Iraq would lead to chaos and civil war. Wrong.
If I believed any of the above statements I would be against the war too. Try sticking to facts and not your assumptions. If you are still against the war, then give an opinion that is rooted in fact rather than bending the truth to fit your veiw.