A Bloody Day For Usa Troops In Iraq

[dr.a.sultan 0]

well , this news attracted me , 12 american died in iraq yesterday. 8 of them are soldiers while 4 are american civilians in a black hawk helicopter crash., till now no one really know what was the cause of the crash...according to army it was due to bad weather , while other reports says it was a military action from the iraqi patriots against the us troops

 

i posted this topic because i just don't know why americans insist on exsiting in iraq , dsepite all the useless loss in troops and money??? i think americans lost this war and even what they said they occupied iraq for...the mass destruction weapons issue , proved to be words of liars...so , what are they waiting for??? why just they retreat??

 

if i were able to talk with george bush , i would tell him " georgi...you lost your war , and soon...you will loss your army"

[Cerebral Stasis 0]

What are you talking about? True, while there may not be any apparent motives for remaining in Iraq (aside from keeping the civilians safe so that the previous leaders don't move back in and start mass-executions on the basis of treason), we are hardly losing the war. We won the "war" easily. The war has been over for a long, long time. Now it's just a matter of cleaning up resistance. Bombings aren't war - they're terrorist attacks, and that's what is so dangerous. Noone can tell if the person walking up to them is a civilian or a suicide bomber in disguise, until they flip the switch, that is.

In any case, we are hardly "losing our army" in Iraq. This is, in fact, one of the mildest wars that the United States has ever fought. The casualties are in the thousands. In fact, according to this article, the total troops lost in Iraq is currently at about 2,178 while the total wounded is at around 15,955 while, according to this website, there are about 160,000 troops stationed in Iraq. So, overall, there have been about 1.25% of the troops stationed in Iraq killed, and 10% wounded. Considering that that this war has lasted over 2 years, that is a very reasonable number. Keep in mind that is this is only the number of troops in Iraq - hardly the entire U.S. Army.

[wariorpk 0]

It seems like all you hear on the news anymore is that soldiers died in Iraq. People act like it is a really big deal, which it is but you have to realize that the number that have died is a reasonable number for any war. During both World Wars and the Vietnam War countless thousands were lost verses a couple thousands. Also, the wars mentioned were not optional you were drafted into the military. While the Iraq War was optional. These people understood what it meant to go to Iraq so you can not always blame Bush for their deaths, but since it was optional for them to go they are heros.

[no9t9 0]

Whenever I hear that US soilders got killed in Iraq, I know a some people can't help thinking that they deserve what they get. I feel sorry for those who have died, especially for their families. The saddest part is that the war was started for all the wrong reasons and the people who died in Iraq are those who least deserve it.To be honest. If Bush (both jr and sr), rumsfeld, etc. all got killed in Iraq, I think they would deserve it. Certain members of the Bush administration, in my opinion, should be charged with war crimes. They continually break international laws which they have signed, they commit acts of treason (revealing CIA agents), and more.Some of these crimes are punishable by death. Yet, not only are these people not put in jail, they are still allowed to run the whole damn country. In addition to that, about half the american population wanted them back in office! It completely astounds me that Americans can even consider putting the Bush administration back into office (but it happened).The bush administration has done nothing for America except make more enemies, destroy the economy, and create a huge rift within the america itself. Good work.

[liauce 0]

It is a war after all, so there are bound to be casualties. Probablly we have to ask a few questions. Are the casualties worth it? What is the war for anyway? If we think about it, what the war is for, and the benefits to be gained from it, or the benefits to be gained from not going to war compared with that to be gained from going to war, I think it is not worth fighting and the deaths are hardly worth it.First Bush may be going there for the oil, for the ideology (which is to assume the role of a superpower, extent spheres of influence and show it is in control), or maybe as the Press things on the assumption of defence and flawed intelligence.If it were for the oil, it may be worth the fight. However, USA has enough reserves to keep itself running for another 100 years IF and only IF the Bush administration cuts down on its cost spending. However, with the Iraq war, spending has increased and its quite silly to get more oil just to spend it away, though probably less than 50% is spend away.However, at the moment it seems there are no concrete signs of US taking over all of Iraq's oil rigs for themselves or anything close to that sort. As such, I firmly believe the war is a stupid idea and should not have been fault. Besides, no amount of economics and empirical calculation can account for the emotional and psychological hurt of the soldiers loved ones.

[Cerebral Stasis 0]

Well, if the war WAS intended for "taking over" oil rigs, I'm pretty sure that, with Bush's current popularity polls in mind, the citizens of the U.S.A. would be screaming for his head on a silver platter if he would actually invade a Middle-Eastern country and start a war just to seize control of oil rigs.The Army went in pleanty well-equipped, but there were things that they did not expect that hindered the outcome they had hoped for. Blinding sandstorms, for example.

[brainless 0]

However, at the moment it seems there are no concrete signs of US taking over all of Iraq's oil rigs for themselves or anything close to that sort.

Wrong! (yes, with exclamation mark but no personal offense meant ... and after I've written this post I'd dare to remove the ! since it's not the US government taking over the oil but names like Halliburton, Exxon, Shell, to name a few even though others are involved as well)

Before Gulf War III, the iraqi oil industry was completely state-owned; after Gulf War II it came nearly to an end due to international sanctions against Iraq; since 1996, Iraq was allowed to export limited amounts of oil in exchange for food, medical supplies and other things needed to serve humanitarian needs, since 1999 Iraq got permission to export unlimited amounts of oil to serve humanitarian needs (and humanitarian needs only...). As a result of this, the average iraqi citizen's living conditions improved drastically.
One of the first bills passed by the US-installed Iraqi interim (?) Government opened the iraqi oil market to foreign corporations, enabling them to buy tax-free (the latter might change in future) control over iraqi oil; iraqi resistance however is somewhat successfull at stopping oil production, it is currently at about three quarters of the pre-war level (fluctuating since Iraqi resistance forces are somewhat successfull when it comes to disturbing oil production).
Before the war, US officials expected to be able to pay for the invasion (study recent reports ... the people don't see anything of your liberation) with iraqi oil; the estimated costs to the USA range between some hundred million dollars (direct war spendings) and several billion dollars (including estimates on how economy would have evolved without the war). well, right now the iraqi oil industry does not even support the iraqi people and the multi-national corporations involved to not earn as much as expected.

One question: Which sane government would give a source of money and power into foreign hands? With the iraqi oil reserves under your control you'd have a huge influence on today's economy. What do you expect what the oil market is going to look like in ten years? [well, the worst scenario in which I personally do not believe is that the world's oil reserves will be somewhere near zero by then ... I'd say it'll last about another twenty years even though the price for it will drastically increase unless another fuel is introduced on a large scale within the next few years]

[liauce 0]

Well that would mean all the more, the war is a complete waste of resources, time and the cons are more than the pros.Whatever it is, war can never be a good thing. History repeats itself. What in the world was Bush thinking.Yet then again, the loss is one the US can handle well. Even though the government may now be on a huge budget deficiet, the economy is doing well (partly because of the war) which means that though there is a huge deficit, in real terms, it is only a small percentage of GDP. In that sense the American government is doing very well. Economically at least. Public opinion is another issue

[brainless 0]

The Army went in pleanty well-equipped, but there were things that they did not expect that hindered the outcome they had hoped for. Blinding sandstorms, for example.

well ... they've led a war in pretty much this area a little more than 10 years before they've gone there again and it's not as if there was no enforcement of the northern and southern no-fly-zones in the time between Gulf War II and III, including bombs being dropped on iraqi military targets (the air forces did not have as much trouble recognizing the difference between military and civilian targets as they had within the last three years, for whatever reason). Not expecting stuff like sandstorms in a desert is somewhat crazy...

liauce: Bush was not thinking, that's the problem...: "I had doubts about attacking Iraq but my higher father told me to..."
right, it did the economy well ... but what good did it do the average american citizen, the average iraqi citizen? None. Just about every militant group and organization now has one reason more to attack US facilities or the USA itself; the average iraqi citizen lives in constant fear of being hit by a bomb (placed by the resistance or the occupational forces, they both do it; dropped by the USA or UK) or assassination through US or UK forces. Half a year ago the death toll among Iraqis was estimated to be 100,000 to 125,000 in the year after the war was officially declared to be won (that was in May 2003; https://www.iraqbodycount.org/ does only count those that have been mentioned in the news or official reports and died within 6 hours after an attack). During the Kosovo War the way this figure has been estimated [the country was divided into, I'm not sure, 33 districts and in each district some thousand households/families have been questioned as to whether they've lost a member and how many members they've lost in the time in question and how they died ... I'm mirroring the site I got this from to my computer and I'll post a link when I stumble upon this article, it was pretty interesting...) was considered perfectly legitimate by US officials. The Iraqi version did not return any comments ("We do not know of this study"). One thing you have to keep in mind about this figure: It only represents the number of people killed and does not make a difference between civilian and military targets but if you look at reports about US attacks in Iraq, the US usually says "X terrorists have been killed in an assault in city Blah", news agency and resistance reports say "X+some people have been killed in an assault in city Blah, Y of those were women and Z children" [children and women usually don't participate in man-stuff in patriarchaic (sp?) countries; fighting is man-stuff in all major muslim societies (though there are some muslim scholars who propagate equal rights; those are, however, a slim minority)]
...so with the invasion itself and the time elapsed since this study, the body count is somewhere around the 200,000. Before the invasion, President Hussein was accused of having slaughtered about 300,000 of his own people. Within all his time in power, several decades. The Coalition of the Willing needed less than two years to kill just as many...

[dr.a.sultan 0]

What are you talking about? True, while there may not be any apparent motives for remaining in Iraq (aside from keeping the civilians safe so that the previous leaders don't move back in and start mass-executions on the basis of treason),

 

of course the USA forces are still in iraq to keep the iraqi people safe...to prevent the so called "terrorists" from reaching them , the american troops imprison hundreds of innocent iraqi people everynow and then. they send them nice gifts in the form of really large bombs and strikes that produce fantasy red colors upon exploding so , amusing nice iraqi children before they are burnt alive "wOoOow , wish i were there" . and for luxurity , the US troops made a 5-star resort for them named "abu - ghreb" i'm sure you heard about it , in which mass torture , humiliation and mass rape is performed and everyone is just happy ... accidentally, i have really nice pics from there:

 

Notice from BuffaloHELP:

Warning! The following images are controversial and turned to links to protect some forum users. You are to view at your discretion.

http://forums.xisto.com/no_longer_exists/

http://forums.xisto.com/no_longer_exists/

http://forums.xisto.com/no_longer_exists/

http://forums.xisto.com/no_longer_exists/

http://forums.xisto.com/no_longer_exists/

 

Can't you see??! Everyone is just happy and having real fun!!

 

we are hardly losing the war. We won the "war" easily. The war has been over for a long, long time.

 

of course you won the war easily , because simply there was no army to fight the american army in the first place...10 years of pain , hunger and siege against iraq were enough to leave no more than sick , weak and unarmed people ... what an honor , what a humanity and what a courageous victory

Now it's just a matter of cleaning up resistance. Bombings aren't war - they're terrorist attacks, and that's what is so dangerous. Noone can tell if the person walking up to them is a civilian or a suicide bomber in disguise, until they flip the switch, that is.

 

A rate of 2 american soldiers killed EVERYday , thousands of millions of dollars lost "that could have been used for health care services in the US , fight unemployment , funding UN anti-AIDS measures in africa or even to reduce global pollution ", alot of american mothers losing thier sons and daughters , 2000 soldier lost only in the 1st two or three years while in vietnam was really less than that "about 200 or so"

with another thousands of wounded and handicapped soldiers ....of course bombings are nothing...specially when you know that some american reports said there is about 2 million bomber in iraq...

 

At the end , i wish happy days for the beloved american soldiers in iraq .... i'm sure iraqi people will be glade to do "whatever it takes" to make them so..

Edited January 13, 2006 by BuffaloHELP (see edit history)

[liauce 0]

I just read a new article in the TIMES magazine. On page 13 entitled "Iraq: Counting the Costs"This write up is based on findings by Harvard budget expert Linda Bilmes and Nobel-prizewinning Columbia economist Joseph StiglitzJust to quote a few juicy data"Final cost to US of the war could be $2 trillion" - "10 times higher than $200 billion suggested by White HOuse before the war."To arrive at this amount, they have included "lifetime cost of disability payments and health care for some 16 000 injured soldiers; increased recruitment budgetsl debt financing for war expenditures"Implicit in the article was that the government has not curbed spending or increased the inflow of money through raising taxes. A huge budget deficit on the way...The only good news the article has to offer, which I cannot really atest to is that of divorce rates. Down from 10 477 in 2004 its just 8367 in 2005.But the numbers itself should scare anyone. Even if the soldiers do not die in battle, their families are being broken up.I think it is time for the people to do something. Vote a government that will not go to war and just mind "our" internal affairs.

[brainless 0]

by now, the full research paper on the costs of the war has been published: http://forums.xisto.com/no_longer_exists/ (beware: 205kb plain text ... ok, minus html tags; I wasn't able to load the single image to be included in this paper due to an error 404), here's the site of the guy who wrote this: http://www8.gsb.columbia.edu/faculty/jstiglitz/

...and here's a shortened version in the Guardian: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2006/jan/07/usa.iraq

[ongnoai 0]

Hey guys,

 

I may have found a way to make the long story short. All these talks about Iraq remind me something said by some Brit writer quite a while back. G.K. Chesterton's precise quote is : ""It is terrible to contemplate how few politicians are hanged."

 

Now, who wouldn't agree to that?

 

Cheers All!

[Cerebral Stasis 0]

Brainless, perhaps I should rephrase "didn't expect sandstorms" to "didn't prepare for sandstorms."Dr. Sultan, I never said that the war wasn't expensive or that there haven't been a lot of casualties. I was merely stating that, compaired to other wars fought by the USA, this has been a very mild one, as far as USA Army casualties are concerned.

Notice from KuBi:

Edit as per requested

Edited January 11, 2006 by KuBi (see edit history)

[heavensounds 0]

I feel soo sorry for those soldiers that are dyin' in Iraq for no particular reason other than Bushes psycho-brains. How can american people tolerate their president killing their own soldiers in a country where you cannot achieve anything. I won't say that it wasnt a good thing that americans destroied husseins regime, but that doesn't mean that they are going to be there for the rest of our mother earths life! It just cannot be that way...

As mr. Bush put it at Victory 2004 Rally in Erie, Pennsylvania:

In Saddam Hussein, we saw a threat. I went to the United States Congress and members of both political parties looked at the same intelligence I looked at, remembered the same history that I remembered, and came to the same conclusion that my administration had come to, he was a threat. My opponent looked at the same intelligence and came to the same conclusion, and voted to authorize the use of force in Iraq.

Yeah Bush you did used force in Iraq, but a loooooot of it hit the civilians and soldiers of your own country!! Try thinking about that and not just your oil...

Well let me conclude, that I really feel sorry for those soldiers and i like USA, but these last actions of their president realy make me wanna puke!