• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

April 5,6,7 & 8, 2007. Iraq updates

tomywishbone

Golden Member
In the 5th year of the invasion, things appear to only be getting worse.
From todays new:

Militants kill 8 U.S. soldiers in Iraq By KIM GAMEL, Associated Press Writer
1 hour, 20 minutes ago, thursady, April 5, 2007.

BAGHDAD - The U.S. military reported Thursday that eight U.S. soldiers were killed in the Baghdad area over the past three days as militants fought back against a security plan in its eighth week. An Army helicopter went down south of the capital, wounding four, after an Iraqi official said insurgents fired on it. ENT

Four British soldiers ? including two women ? died Thursday in an ambush that Prime Minister Tony Blair called an "act of terrorism," suggesting it may have been carried out by elements linked to Iran but stopping short of blaming Tehran.

One U.S. soldier died and two were wounded in a roadside bombing Thursday in restive Diyala province north of Baghdad, the military said. Four others died Wednesday in two roadside bombs explosions in southern Baghdad and north of the capital, while another was killed by small-arms fire in the eastern part of the city. Two other soldiers were killed by small-arms fire on Tuesday ? one in eastern Baghdad and another on foot patrol in the southern outskirts of the capital.

The U.S. military said the downing of the helicopter carrying nine people was under investigation.

An Iraqi army official, speaking on condition of anonymity because of security concerns, said the helicopter went down after it came under fire from anti-aircraft guns near the Sunni insurgent stronghold of Latifiyah, 20 miles south of Baghdad. The U.S. military did not confirm that account.

It was the ninth U.S. helicopter to go down in Iraq this year. The U.S. military has studied new evasive techniques, fearing insurgents have acquired more sophisticated weapons or have figured out how to use their arms in new and effective ways.

The deadly attack against the British patrol in southern Iraq was the greatest loss of life for Britain in more than four months and it cast a shadow over celebrations marking the return of 15 British sailors seized by Iran two weeks ago in disputed waters in the Persian Gulf.

"Just as we rejoice at the return of our 15 service personnel so today we are also grieving and mourning for the loss of our soldiers in Basra, who were killed as the result of a terrorist act," Blair said.

The British patrol struck a roadside bomb and was hit by small-arms fire early Thursday in the southern city of Basra, British military spokeswoman Capt. Katie Brown said. The explosion created a 9-foot crater in the road. Hours after the attack, a British soldier's helmet was still laying in the street among dozens of spent bullets.

A civilian interpreter was also killed and a fifth British soldier in the unit was seriously wounded, Brown said.

Blair raised the possibility that Iranian-linked fighters may have sprung the ambush, although he conceded it was too early to directly accuse Tehran.

"Now it is far too early to say that the particular terrorist act that killed our forces was an act committed by terrorists that were backed by any elements of the Iranian regime, so I make no allegation in respect of that particular incident," Blair said.

He added, however, "This is maybe the right moment to reflect on our relationship with Iran."

The U.S. military has accused Iran of providing sophisticated roadside bombs known as explosively formed projectiles, or EFPs, to Shiite militias. British Lt. Col. Kevin Stratford-Wright said all of those killed were in the vehicle that was struck by the roadside bomb, although he declined to say whether it was an EFP, saying only that "it was certainly a powerful device."

It was the third deadly attack against British forces this month in the predominantly Shiite south. One British soldier also died Sunday and another on Monday ? both from small-arms fire.

The latest casualties raised to 140 the number of British forces to die in Iraq since the March 2003 invasion ? 109 in combat.

Blair has announced that Britain will withdraw about 1,600 troops from Iraq over the next few months and hopes to make other cuts to its 7,100-strong contingent by late summer.

At least 49 people were killed in shootings, bombings and mortar attacks across Iraq on Thursday, including 20 men whose bullet-riddled bodies were brought to a hospital in Baqouba a day after they were abducted at an illegal checkpoint.

Earlier this week, 21 people were killed after they were snatched in a similar incident.

Police also found the body of a famous television anchor from the Saddam Hussein era who was kidnapped two days ago in western Baghdad. A car bomb struck a Sunni television station in the same neighborhood, killing the assistant director and wounding 12 others, according to the Iraqi Islamic Party, which owns the station.

No group claimed responsibility for the attack, but members of the Sunni Iraqi Islamic Party have been targeted in the past by suspected insurgents because they have joined the U.S.-backed political process.


End----------------------------------------
 
Mission accomplished!

Last throes!

We all knew this troop surge stuff was BS.
 
That sounds like a walk in the park or a stroll through an outdoor market in Indiana during the summertime
 
I'm fairly sure the military, SecDef, and Bush all explained the obvious to Congress that as you step up sweeps and put more troops in harms way, casualties will almost defintiely go up.
 
Not sure what you mean there IMC, it's just common sense.

The majority of Iraqi's want peace and a stable country. We want that for htem to.

The people who stand to gain from not having that will do everything they can to make it not happen, because if it does, their out.

As we step up more and more to get rid of them, their going to either step up more and more to combat our actions, or melt away until we're gone.

It's just common sense, no need for the sarcasm...

Chuck
 
Originally posted by: chucky2
Not sure what you mean there IMC, it's just common sense.

The majority of Iraqi's want peace and a stable country. We want that for htem to.

The people who stand to gain from not having that will do everything they can to make it not happen, because if it does, their out.

As we step up more and more to get rid of them, their going to either step up more and more to combat our actions, or melt away until we're gone.

It's just common sense, no need for the sarcasm...

Chuck

Common sense you say? "Common Sense" would have dictated we not attack Iraq under false pretenses in the first place. "Common Sense" would mean putting all those billions of wasted dollars into American domestic development (such as alternative energy, infrastructure maintenance, etc) "Common Sense" would have had us take advantage of World opinion after 9/11 and leverage it to the maximum rather than alienating everyone and putting ourselves in greater danger of attacks than ever before. "Common Sense" means we would have stayed on the case in Afghanistan, gotten Bin Laden and not turned their Poppy Production into high gear as we have.

Yes, let's talk "Common Sense", shall we?
 
Originally posted by: International Machine Consortium
Originally posted by: Aimster
Blair is an idiot.

Wrong thread?

In the article Blair was blaming Iran for the current violence against British troops inside Iraq.

However, British intelligence says there is zero evidence Iran is smuggling weapons inside Iraq.
 
According to John McCain after going to a market in Baghdad everything is fine. Of course he did have 3 Apache helicopters circling above him and few dozen well armed U.S. Marines and a ton of Iraqi military and police personnel with him.
 
Originally posted by: Aimster
Originally posted by: International Machine Consortium
Originally posted by: Aimster
Blair is an idiot.

Wrong thread?

In the article Blair was blaming Iran for the current violence against British troops inside Iraq.

However, British intelligence says there is zero evidence Iran is smuggling weapons inside Iraq.

Ohhhhhh right, the ARTicle. 😉

"Chuck" must be busy watching Fox News....
 
I don't weather to laugh or cry when posters start talking about common sense---when common sense and truth left the middle east many years ago----driven away by big guns, bombs, and polarization. Leaving all moderates without a leg to stand on.

Oddly enough Chucky2 has one of the few true statements on this thread---namely---The people who stand to gain from not having that will do everything they can to make it not happen, because if it does, their out.

And by that I assume Chucky2 refers to the various militia leaders who now rule the streets, have had four long years to consolidate their power, are the past and present formentors of violence, and that they will not give up power easily. As to who they are, what they want, whats the cure, and all that stuff---thats where the disagreements and clueless on all sides begin-----so we have have to ask where that leads us when we can't even answer the question of are things getting better yet?---or will they ever?

Another truth Chucky2 has is that Sarcasm does not help---and I must confess that I too have---in moments of anger and frustration driven the sarcasm meter towards the red line---and it helps not and Chucky2 is right there-----I have to agree that common sense has taught us that invading Iraq was a giant mistake---but all Americans now have a common problem and crying about spilled milk helps not a bit. But a 20-20 hindsight look at past mistakes may lead us to reject the same stinking thinking mistakes now proposed as solutions---as being the same stinking that got us into this mess in the first place. And therefore extremely unlikely to be helpful in solving anything now.

And even if I by in large disagree with Chucky2 and his ilk, we keyboard warriors on P&N may be guilty of inconveniencing many trillions of electrons that form up the resulting askii code and letters that fill our computers screens, but its our fearless leaders that are the real problems in Iraq and on this thread----we are mere symptoms of the larger disease of people just failing to get along without resorting to violence.

I am therefore very disappointed by the recent statements by Tony Blair---that lash out at Iran. I had hoped that the hostage crisis being resolved would lead to further positive progress.

Well looks like its back to business as usual.
 
Originally posted by: chucky2
Not sure what you mean there IMC, it's just common sense.

The majority of Iraqi's want peace and a stable country. We want that for htem to.

The people who stand to gain from not having that will do everything they can to make it not happen, because if it does, their out.

As we step up more and more to get rid of them, their going to either step up more and more to combat our actions, or melt away until we're gone.

It's just common sense, no need for the sarcasm...

Chuck

Common sense tells us that its impossible to eliminate a stateless enemy with guns and force alone. The insurgents exist because we are in Iraq and they will continue to exist until we leave. Every one of them that we kill just gets replaced.
 
Originally posted by: chucky2
I'm fairly sure the military, SecDef, and Bush all explained the obvious to Congress that as you step up sweeps and put more troops in harms way, casualties will almost defintiely go up.
That just rolls off your tongue like you don't give two craps about how many troops die over there. And I'll just bet you've got one of those yellow magnetic ribbons plastered on your vehicle, dontcha?
 
I know we should have never been/gone there.. but now.. what are the goals of the insurgents?

They are ANTI-Democracy
They are ANTI-FREEDOM

They want Sharia Law FTW .. Supreme Rulers only and reduced womens rights and FUNDIE EDUCATION only.

Iraq was actually much better off under Saddam... We should have worked harder to remove him peacefully

I still believe 1000% that our goal was to build OUR Military presence in the ME .. and not to help anyone else
 
To dahuman,

Who sez---They are ANTI-Democracy
They are ANTI-FREEDOM

They want Sharia Law FTW .. Supreme Rulers only and reduced womens rights and FUNDIE EDUCATION only.

Not really the way I see it at all.

In Saddam we just had one big thug looting the country and killing fellow Iraqi.

Now we have a whole bunch of littler thugs in all variety of sized--looting the country and killing their fellow Iraqi.

Power to the people---democracy in action---and---they can unite on only one thing, expel American invaders.

As for the bulk of Iraqi's who are not of the thug class---can we blame them for looking back to the good ole days under Saddam when life was at least more predictable.---and safer.

But such are the birth pains of anarchy---and the fact is if you are an Iraqi man of woman on the streets---you look for an Iraqi thug to protect you---because the Iraqi police and the Americans won't.

What we have brought to Iraq is not democracy---its fuedalism---when it came to Europe after the fall of Rome---it only took a thousand years to get what we now call modern states.
 
From today, April 6, 2007.

But hey, this is probably the same type of chlorine bomb they use at "Indiana markets during the summer."

Chlorine truck bomber kills 27 in Ramadi By BASSEM MROUE, Associated Press Writer, 1 hour, 39 minutes ago

BAGHDAD - A suicide bomber driving a truck loaded with TNT and toxic chlorine gas crashed into a police checkpoint in western Ramadi on Friday, killing at least 27 people and wounding dozens, police in the Anbar provincial capital said.

In the deep south of the country, the Basra police commander said the type of roadside bomb used in an attack that killed four British soldiers on Thursday had not been seen in the region previously. Maj. Gen. Mohammed al-Moussawi's description of the deadly weapon indicated it was a feared Iranian-designed explosively formed penetrator.

Two more of the bombs were discovered planted along routes heavily traveled by U.S. and British diplomats in Basra. Weeks earlier, the American military had claimed Iran was supplying Shiite militia fighters in Iraq with the powerful weapons, known as EFPs. They hurl a molten, fist-sized copper slug capable of piercing armored vehicles.

The bombing in Anbar province marked the ninth use of suicide chlorine bombs in the sprawling, mainly desert territory that has been a stronghold of the Sunni insurgency.

Recently, however, many Anbar tribes have switched allegiance, with large numbers of military-age men joining the police force and Iraqi army in a bid to expel al-Qaida in Iraq fighters. Suicide bombings are an al-Qaida trademark.

Some bystanders had trouble breathing after Friday's chlorine attack and were taken to a nearby hospital for treatment, said police Maj. Jubair Rashid al-Nayef. Others with more serious injuries were taken to a U.S. base in the area, and then flown by helicopter to a larger hospital north of Baghdad, al-Nayef said.

Police Maj. Mohammed Mahmoud al Nattah, member of the Anbar Salvation council, told state-run Iraqiya television the bomber hit a residential complex and dozens of wounded were taken to the Ramadi hospital.

Police opened fire as the suicide car bomber sped toward a checkpoint, three miles west of the city, according to police Col. Tariq al-Dulaimi. Nearby buildings were heavily damaged and police were searching the rubble for more victims.

South of Baghdad, Iraqi forces backed by American paratroopers swept into a troubled, predominantly Shiite city before dawn, and the U.S. military said as many as six militia fighters had been killed.

Lt. Col. Scott Bleichwehl, a U.S. military spokesman, said eight others were wounded and five detained. There were no reports of civilian casualties in the assault on Diwaniyah, he said.

Residents reported heavy fighting between the U.S. and Iraqi forces and gunmen of the Mahdi Army militia in the city, 80 miles south of Baghdad.

Dr. Hameed Jaafi, the director of Diwaniyah Health Directorate, said an American helicopter fired on a house in the Askari neighborhood, seriously wounding 12 people as the early morning assault began.

Bleichwehl said there were no U.S. air strikes either by helicopters or planes.

Also Thursday, the U.S. military confirmed an American helicopter carrying nine people had been downed south of Baghdad and that four were injured.

An Iraqi army official, speaking on condition of anonymity because of security concerns, said the helicopter crashed after coming under fire near the Sunni insurgent stronghold of Latifiyah, about 20 miles south of Baghdad. The U.S. military did not confirm that account.

It was the ninth U.S. helicopter to go down in Iraq this year. The U.S. military has studied new evasive techniques, fearing insurgents have acquired more sophisticated weapons or have figured out how to use their arms in new and effective ways.

The four British soldiers ? including two women ? were killed Thursday as the American military announced the deaths of nine more U.S. soldiers since Tuesday.

The Basra region police commander, al-Moussawi, said two similar bombs had been discovered Friday morning; one was discovered on the road leading to Basra Palace, the compound that houses a British base and the British and U.S. consulates. A second was uncovered in the western Hayaniyah district where Thursday's attack occurred. The area is known as a stronghold of the Mahdi Army, a militia loyal to radical Shiite cleric Muqtada al-Sadr.

The reported deaths of the American forces and the bomb attack on the British unit marked the start of the eighth week of the joint U.S.-Iraqi security crackdown in Baghdad and surrounding territory.

Prime Minister Tony Blair called the Basra attack an "act of terrorism" and suggested it may have been the work of militiamen linked to Iran. He stopped short of accusing Tehran, however.

"Now it is far too early to say that the particular terrorist act that killed our forces was an act committed by terrorists that were backed by any elements of the Iranian regime, so I make no allegation in respect of that particular incident," Blair said.

He added, however, "This is maybe the right moment to reflect on our relationship with Iran."

The U.S. military reported Saturday that one American soldier was killed and a second wounded in shooting in Kirkuk province.

One U.S. soldier died and two were wounded in a roadside bombing Thursday in restive Diyala province north of Baghdad, the military said. Four others died Wednesday in two roadside bomb explosions in southern Baghdad and north of the capital, while a fifth was killed by small-arms fire in the eastern part of the city. Two other soldiers were killed by small-arms fire on Tuesday ? one in eastern Baghdad and another on foot patrol in the southern outskirts of the capital.

Email Story IM Story Printable View RECOMMEND THIS STORY
Recommend It:

 
I've got to get back to putting out Friday fires here at work, so I'll just make this one statement here in P&N as at the momement it means the most to me:

DealMonkey: Unless somehow you actually know me - and if you do please give me a call so we can meet and you can say that to my face - please go jump in front of a train.

Do not ever question my patriotism or concern for all our citizens, military or cilvilian. I've got a couple of buddies who are in the military, one that I know for sure is somewhere over there, and one I'm not so sure, but basically, it just doesn't "roll of my tongue".

My point in making that statement is that in a war people die. It's bad. Bush knows this, the people who signed themselves up to serve in our military know this, the civilians in Iraq certainly know this, and so do the insurgents. Once the war starts, people are going to keep dying until it's over. If you have a hotly contested area, and you step up operations all the while adding more troops, more people are going to die until the other side runs.

If you cannot understand something so exceedingly simple, then you really have no business commenting on anytthing related to any war, Iraq included.

I'm out, I can't believe I just wasted 2 minutes of my valuable time responding to such a worthless post.

Chuck
 
ummm tomy... from your own post link
An average of 67 people died per day in Feb.
Yet is the article you quote here 49 people were killed on one day and 21 on another and this truck bomb only killed 27.

Does this mean the death toll, as bad as it is, is still lower than it was pre-surge?

Question for you Tomy, do you want us to pull out because it will save the lives of American troops, or because all this killing upsets you? Because if you are upset about 49 people being killed in one day wait until we are gone and that number doubles.
 
Originally posted by: chucky2
I've got to get back to putting out Friday fires here at work, so I'll just make this one statement here in P&N as at the momement it means the most to me:

DealMonkey: Unless somehow you actually know me - and if you do please give me a call so we can meet and you can say that to my face - please go jump in front of a train.

Do not ever question my patriotism or concern for all our citizens, military or cilvilian. I've got a couple of buddies who are in the military, one that I know for sure is somewhere over there, and one I'm not so sure, but basically, it just doesn't "roll of my tongue".

My point in making that statement is that in a war people die. It's bad. Bush knows this, the people who signed themselves up to serve in our military know this, the civilians in Iraq certainly know this, and so do the insurgents. Once the war starts, people are going to keep dying until it's over. If you have a hotly contested area, and you step up operations all the while adding more troops, more people are going to die until the other side runs.

If you cannot understand something so exceedingly simple, then you really have no business commenting on anytthing related to any war, Iraq included.

I'm out, I can't believe I just wasted 2 minutes of my valuable time responding to such a worthless post.

Chuck

Maybe you should have "wasted" your "valuable time" responding to actual points that people made instead of truely wasting your time on such a non-issue. Your views don't suddenly become credible just because you have military friends. Please explain how we can defeat a stateless enemy.
 
Q: Question for you Tomy, do you want us to pull out because it will save the lives of American troops, or because all this killing upsets you? Because if you are upset about 49 people being killed in one day wait until we are gone and that number doubles.

A: I want us to leave because:

-The entire premise for the invasion is a lie.
-The entire premise for the occupation is a lie.
- The person who instigated the violence, via violence, can not solve the problem with more violence.
-Once the US is totallly removed from the equation, the blame for the insanity will pass to those involved. Sure we started it, and will historically be responsible for the mass murder and destruction of Iraq, but from the day we are gone, the responsibility for what happens after that, goes elsewhere.
-Killing doesn't upset me. Killing to cover up for a giant armed robbery, after you've already been caught upsets me. Once you lose, give it up and go home.
-To keep suffering after you've already lost is just stupid.
 
Originally posted by: ProfJohn
ummm tomy... from your own post link
An average of 67 people died per day in Feb.
Yet is the article you quote here 49 people were killed on one day and 21 on another and this truck bomb only killed 27.

Does this mean the death toll, as bad as it is, is still lower than it was pre-surge?

Question for you Tomy, do you want us to pull out because it will save the lives of American troops, or because all this killing upsets you? Because if you are upset about 49 people being killed in one day wait until we are gone and that number doubles.

You're missing the broader point. These constant deaths are just further proof that we cannot establish a democracy by attrition. The Sunni-Shia conflict can only be solved by sunnis and shias, not by Americans. The only realistic option we have right now is to leave and let the Iraqis solve their own conflicts (let them fight among themselves, let them split Iraq up if necessary, and let them establish their own government).

Attempts at nation building have consistently failed throughout history so before you cry "failure!" remember whose decision it was to do this in the first place.
 
Originally posted by: tomywishbone
Q: Question for you Tomy, do you want us to pull out because it will save the lives of American troops, or because all this killing upsets you? Because if you are upset about 49 people being killed in one day wait until we are gone and that number doubles.

A: I want us to leave because:

-The entire premise for the invasion is a lie.
-The entire premise for the occupation is a lie.
- The person who instigated the violence, via violence, can not solve the problem with more violence.
-Once the US is totallly removed from the equation, the blame for the insanity will pass to those involved. Sure we started it, and will historically be responsible for the mass murder and destruction of Iraq, but from the day we are gone, the responsibility for what happens after that, goes elsewhere.
-Killing doesn't upset me. Killing to cover up for a giant armed robbery, after you've already been caught upsets me. Once you lose, give it up and go home.
-To keep suffering after you've already lost is just stupid.
Thank you for your answer.
I don't agree with everything, but I can understand you having the POV that you do.

I am for staying because I believe the result of us leaving will be worse than us staying there.

However if by the fall we have not seen some serious efforts by the Iraqi government and some positive results via the surge then I think we should really evaluate our long term goals. At that point it may make more sense to get our troops off the street and into a training and support role, along with anti-terror operations in places like Anfar province.

Or George will have to do a hell of a lot better job selling the reasoning for us staying.
I think that is one of the major reasons support for the war is so low. The anti-war left pound on the war non-stop. Meanwhile Bush I seems to do nothing to explain why the war is important and why we need to stay.
 
Back
Top