NationStates Jolt Archive

U.S. troops' deadly weekend
Two Marines killed in Al Anbar province bring the toll to at least 27. The cause of a Black Hawk copter crash is still under investigation.
January 22, 2007

BAGHDAD — Two Marines were killed Sunday in Al Anbar province west of the capital, bringing the weekend U.S. death toll to at least 27, a dramatic increase in fatalities that comes as President Bush is trying to convince a wary public of his plan to escalate the military presence in Iraq.

The U.S. military also reported that at least five more U.S. soldiers and one Marine had died in separate combat incidents in Baghdad and Al Anbar on Saturday, the third-deadliest day for American forces since the March 2003 invasion of Iraq.

Another 44 Iraqis were killed or found dead in political and sectarian violence, including the bombing of a bus in a middle-class Shiite Muslim neighborhood of Baghdad that left seven dead and 15 injured.

A British soldier was killed Sunday when his vehicle struck a roadside bomb in the southern city of Basra. Four British soldiers were injured in the blast.

The deaths come as the U.S. begins to deploy thousands of additional troops into Iraq, the first of 21,500 meant to bolster forces that must confront Shiite and Sunni Arab gunmen in a complex peacekeeping and counterinsurgency mission.

Sources: YahooNEWS/LAtimes/OcceanNEWS©2004 - 2007
my2cents: Bush's escalation(Surge) is already having an impact

How many "surges" have there really been?

Why is this not working? One would think, doing the same thing over and over would yield different results. One would think that, that is, if one was insane.

What I don't understand is, why is this even an issue? Didn't we win? I mean, I saw the joyful Iraqi people tearing down that big statue of Saddam Hussein. And didn't the President make that wonderful speech on the Abraham Lincoln and tell us our mission was accomplished? I mean, really, why are we sending more troops? Or am I missing something?

How many "surges" have there really been?
one of the retired Generals actually said at CNN that US(we) have already tried a "surge" before.. and it did not slow them down.. on the contrary.

How many "surges" have there really been?

Why is this not working? One would think, doing the same thing over and over would yield different results. One would think that, that is, if one was insane.

What I don't understand is, why is this even an issue? Didn't we win? I mean, I saw the joyful Iraqi people tearing down that big statue of Saddam Hussein. And didn't the President make that wonderful speech on the Abraham Lincoln and tell us our mission was accomplished? I mean, really, why are we sending more troops? Or am I missing something?

Bush Logic (http://dojo.fi/~rancid/loituma__.swf).:rolleyes:

What do you expect from a man that decided to invade a country without an exit strategy?

Bush Logic (http://dojo.fi/~rancid/loituma__.swf).:rolleyes:

What do you expect from a man that decided to invade a country without an exit strategy?

Exactly. And where's my 50 gallons of free gasoline? I know we were promised that in 2003.

Bush Logic (http://dojo.fi/~rancid/loituma__.swf).:rolleyes:


lol, thats beautiful.

I have a proposal for the President. Why doesn't he set up a Middle Eastern White House inside the Green Zone in Baghdad and run the country from there? That way he could be on top of every development in Iraqi, make sure the Iraqi government lives up to its promises and our expectations, and his presence would provide incalculable support for our troops and show the Iraqi people we mean what we say and are willing to sacrifice to achieve it. Modern communications are such that he could be in touch with everything happening in the US and the rest of the world instantaneously.

I have a proposal for the President. Why doesn't he set up a Middle Eastern White House inside the Green Zone in Baghdad and run the country from there? I second that proposal :D

Exactly. And where's my 50 gallons of free gasoline? I know we were promised that in 2003.

You'll get that right after he repeals his healthcare taxation initiative.

You'll get that right after he repeals his healthcare taxation initiative.

Damn! Maybe that "$100 dollars for everyone" idea the Republicans had a while back wasn't so bad. Gas is close to going under two bucks a gallon ...

Damn! Maybe that "$100 dollars for everyone" idea the Republicans had a while back wasn't so bad. Gas is close to going under two bucks a gallon ...

How sad is it that I'll be happy to see the day when I'll be paying $1.75 or ::gasp:: $1.50 a gallon.

How sad is it that I'll be happy to see the day when I'll be paying $1.75 or ::gasp:: $1.50 a gallon.

What's the lowest you rememberas an adult? I mean, when you had to put your hand in your pocket to pay for it? I remember watching the price climb up over 50 cents and every other day it was a couple pennies more, through the 50s into the 60s. I know it was around a quarter when I was in college some years before that but I didn't have a car, so I never really cared.

one of the retired Generals actually said at CNN that US(we) have already tried a "surge" before.. and it did not slow them down.. on the contrary.

Yea we surged troops before elections to provide extra security and i really don't see where he gets the idea that that failed. Besides, it's not like we're just putting 21,000 more grunts in baghdad. We're embedding them w/ iraqis in baghdad. One of the major problems halting progress in iraq is the corruption of the iraqi forces. When the fight with coalition forces they look like they are ready to take the lead but when they fight by themselves they look like they have made little progress at all. That is why we are sending the troops to embed with them so that we can curb some of that corruption and give them more experience in conducting proper operations. If we just let them let them keep doing what they're doing they're only gonna go backwards and get cut down. Sure it's a last ditch option but it is really the only one.

What's the lowest you rememberas an adult? I mean, when you had to put your hand in your pocket to pay for it? I remember watching the price climb up over 50 cents and every other day it was a couple pennies more, through the 50s into the 60s. I know it was around a quarter when I was in college some years before that but I didn't have a car, so I never really cared.

Gas was $0.98/ gal when I started driving. It stayed at that level for over a year. I left the country for awhile and was paying for gas by the litre. When I came back gas was $1.35/ gal and I remember being quite upset. Ah, the good 'ol days of $1.35/ gal gas.

I gas was $0.98/ gal when I started driving. It stayed at that level for over a year. I left the country for awhile and was paying for gas by the litre. When I came back gas was $1.35/ gal and I remember being quite upset. Ah, the good 'ol days of $1.35/ gal gas.

Yeah, really, and gas stations where someone came out and pumped gas for you and cleaned the windshield.

What's the lowest you rememberas an adult? I mean, when you had to put your hand in your pocket to pay for it? I remember watching the price climb up over 50 cents and every other day it was a couple pennies more, through the 50s into the 60s. I know it was around a quarter when I was in college some years before that but I didn't have a car, so I never really cared.

I got my first car during the OPEC price war in the 80s and gas was $.69 a gallon. Since I was driving a big V8 from the 70s that worked out well for me.

If we just let them (iraqi forces) let them keep doing what they're doing they're only gonna go backwards and get cut down. Sure it's a last ditch option but it is really the only one.the Iraqui forces say Bush (US gov) is giving them shitty and unsuficient weapons/armor.

its like a football game against the Insurgent.. we welcome iraquis in our team.. we pay them to play side-by-side with US.. but we dont give them the pads and the helmets.

so when insurgents attack..most of the casualties are "our" iraquis.

the Iraqui forces say Bush (US gov) is giving them shitty and unsuficient weapons/armor.

its like a football game against the Insurgent.. we welcome them in our team.. but we dont give them the pads and the helmets.

so when insurgents attack..most of the casualties are "our" iraquis.

Big deal, our guys had to have their families buy them body armor and they were scrounging vehicle armor from wrecks. The Iraqis need to suck it up.

Actually, we're starting the phase where we turn it all around and blame the Iraqis for everything, so Dear Leader can go on TV sometime around the Republican Convention in 2008 and announce that because the Iraqi government hasn't lived up to its commitments, we're bringing our troops home. Mission accomplished.

This is unacceptable. No matter how hard we try, the Iraqi people simply refuse to be wiped off the face of the earth. Why can't we all just get along, the Iraqis have to take the first step-We would like them all to douse themselves in kerosene and paint targets on themselves. Flamethrowers will be distributed at 3 o'clock sharp.

What I don't understand is, why is this even an issue? Didn't we win? I mean, I saw the joyful Iraqi people tearing down that big statue of Saddam Hussein. And didn't the President make that wonderful speech on the Abraham Lincoln and tell us our mission was accomplished? I mean, really, why are we sending more troops? Or am I missing something?

Yeah we did. We liberated Iraq and removed Saddam from power.

Which is still the prime "reason" given to justify our occupation... I don't quite see how that's supposed to work either. We've been liberating Iraq and removing Saddam from power for years now.

the Iraqui forces say Bush (US gov) is giving them shitty and unsuficient weapons/armor.

its like a football game against the Insurgent.. we welcome iraquis in our team.. we pay them to play side-by-side with US.. but we dont give them the pads and the helmets.

so when insurgents attack..most of the casualties are "our" iraquis.

One more example of the completely distorted mass view of iraq. Iraqis do have helmets, armour and weapons. Most units have APC's. Now if you want to talk about the IP then that is a different story. But then again police in america don't have APC's. They are pretty well supplied but the problem is that the best supplied units are the ones who whine the most about how they need things. So the more that things are supplied the more that you will hear about how they need more and that that is why they aren't doing what they are supposed to be doing.

One thing I've noticed is the (*sigh*) inevitable compliancy of the US media over the Iraq mess.
It was 'Mission Accomplished' 3 years ago. The whole point was to oust Saddam, destroy his WMD stockpiles, destroy terrorism and secure Iraq for a democratic future.

Now the mission has pretty much been reduced to lessening the violence in one city (Baghdad) and if this happens, the whole sorry affair will be viewed as a success by neo-cons.

Does the US media relentless attack the Whitehouse over this capitulation? Ask probing questions?
Demand explanations?
Or do they just parrot what comes out of the Whitehouse and cheerlead them as the trudge down the same well-beaten path?

I have a proposal for the President. Why doesn't he set up a Middle Eastern White House inside the Green Zone in Baghdad and run the country from there?

How Machiavellian. That a conqueror should rule from land he conquered in order to personally deal with dissent is one of his points.

How Machiavellian. That a conqueror should rule from land he conquered in order to personally deal with dissent is one of his points.

And what's wrong with Machiavellian?

Bush Logic (http://dojo.fi/~rancid/loituma__.swf).:rolleyes:

What do you expect from a man that decided to invade a country without an exit strategy?


Most invasions don't involve an exit strategy,
as most invaders have no intention of ever leaving.
Obviously not the case in this war,
to get rid of a dictator and bring democracy and freedom to the people of Iraq.
After all its not like Iraq has anything the US administration wants.

And what's wrong with Machiavellian?

Absolutely nothing. The Prince was fantastic.

Most invasions don't involve an exit strategy,
as most invaders have no intention of ever leaving.
Obviously not the case in this war,
to get rid of a dictator and bring democracy and freedom to the people of Iraq.
After all its not like Iraq has anything the US administration wants.

Yeah I mean it's not like Operation Iraqi Liberation is about anything beside "freeing" the Iraqi people.
After all the first thing we did was secure the banks, museums and cultural landmarks in Iraq.
The Iraqi Ministry of Oil was the last thing that we secured.
Wasn't it?
:rolleyes:

I have a proposal for the President. Why doesn't he set up a Middle Eastern White House inside the Green Zone in Baghdad and run the country from there? That way he could be on top of every development in Iraqi, make sure the Iraqi government lives up to its promises and our expectations, and his presence would provide incalculable support for our troops and show the Iraqi people we mean what we say and are willing to sacrifice to achieve it. Modern communications are such that he could be in touch with everything happening in the US and the rest of the world instantaneously.

now thats something i could get behind.

Well, the death toll sure is surging. And Bush's credibility is doing the opposite.

None of this would've happened if I had my way and all wars were fought with pies!

paid for by the Lunatic Goofballs for UN Secretary General! campaign. :)

Yeah I mean it's not like Operation Iraqi Liberation is about anything beside "freeing" the Iraqi people.
After all the first thing we did was secure the banks, museums and cultural landmarks in Iraq.
The Iraqi Ministry of Oil was the last thing that we secured.
Wasn't it?
:rolleyes:

Ah, yes, knowing that Saddam would burn his oil fields upon our entrance, we still went for the oil. Sure.

Even though we already pay Saudi Arabia $333 billion dollars (1/3 of our defense budget) to ship oil to our coasts. So... marginal oil gains in Iraq and all, its still all about the oil, right?

I mean, thats why we blew the shit out of afghanistan... right?

None of this would've happened if I had my way and all wars were fought with pies!

paid for by the Lunatic Goofballs for UN Secretary General! campaign. :)

those wars would honestly be less tasteless :p

all puns intended there.

The U.S. military also reported that at least five more U.S. soldiers and one Marine had died in separate combat incidents in Baghdad and Al Anbar on Saturday, the third-deadliest day for American forces since the March 2003 invasion of Iraq.

So... wait. If I'm reading this correctly, 6 US troops dying in one day makes that the third-deadliest day since the invasion?

None of this would've happened if I had my way and all wars were fought with pies!

paid for by the Lunatic Goofballs for UN Secretary General! campaign. :)

You should be Supreme Ruler of the World! :cool:

Ah, yes, knowing that Saddam would burn his oil fields upon our entrance, we still went for the oil. Sure.

Which is why the oil fields weren't primary objectives to secure for the troops. Wait, they were?

Well then, how about the fact that the upcoming bill for the Iraqi government guarantee's exclusive rights to the oil fields to no one else but certain American oil companies? I wonder why?

As to Saudi Arabia, those oil fields are starting to get a bit on the dry side. Better to control the last few big ones available eh?

As to Saudi Arabia, those oil fields are starting to get a bit on the dry side. Better to control the last few big ones available eh?

*snicker*

You should be Supreme Ruler of the World! :cool:

Nah. I hate fixer-uppers. :p

Nah. I hate fixer-uppers. :p

Awww. :(

Nah. I hate fixer-uppers. :p

Where do we make our donations to for your cause? :)

Where do we make our donations to for your cause? :)

A portion of all proceeds from the sales of Silly Putty go to my campaign. :)

*snicker*

How long has Saudi fields been pumping up oil? What's the average life expectancy for an oil field? You might want to ask yourself that question before laughing.

I have a proposal for the President. Why doesn't he set up a Middle Eastern White House inside the Green Zone in Baghdad and run the country from there? That way he could be on top of every development in Iraqi, make sure the Iraqi government lives up to its promises and our expectations, and his presence would provide incalculable support for our troops and show the Iraqi people we mean what we say and are willing to sacrifice to achieve it. Modern communications are such that he could be in touch with everything happening in the US and the rest of the world instantaneously.

...because the stampede to kill the fucker would damage the enviroment?

So... wait. If I'm reading this correctly, 6 US troops dying in one day makes that the third-deadliest day since the invasion?You are obviously Not.

the LAtimes is talking about American soldiers killed.

I fully expect the LAtimes to have checked the numbers.. the numbers advanced so far (for the weekend) is at least 30.. (confirmed kills)

and if they are talking about one day.. is gotta be Saturday. (they did not want to be on the Colbert Report.)

I suppose that we are all supposed to just sit back and agree with Bush & Co. in doing the same things they've been doing for years and just hope that things somehow improve in Iraq. One would think they would know that simply saying that Iraq will be a peaceful democracy will not make it true. But I suppose reality doesn't affect the decisions of our leaders does it?

its like a football game against the Insurgent.. we welcome iraquis in our team.. we pay them to play side-by-side with US.. but we dont give them the pads and the helmets.
That game's called "rugby" and it's great. Try it some time.

As a more relevant post - yep... Iraq is a complete mess. Not supplying the Iraqis / Brits / Aussies / US / etc. well enough. And anyway - what are the actual objectives?

...because the stampede to kill the fucker would damage the enviroment?

That's a point, but if the approaches to the Green Zone are laid out properly, we could funnel all those people into a huge holding cell, see, then sort them out ... We might even find Judge Crater, or Osama.

As a more relevant post - yep... Iraq is a complete mess. Not supplying the Iraqis / Brits / Aussies / US / etc. well enough. And anyway - what are the actual objectives? Bush adapting the Objectives:

Army Recruiting: from 7000 >to> 700
Mission Accomplished: from bringing Democracy to the Middle east >to> Securing Baghdad.

Copyright©TheColbertReport