Fourteen US Soldiers killed in the first three days of June

[Dari]

That's roughly 5/day. These damn roadside bombs are as lethal as ever. Somebody tell me again why we are still in Iraq?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/6716683.stm

Fourteen US troops killed in Iraq

Fourteen US soldiers have been killed in the last three days in Iraq, mainly in roadside bombings, the US military has said.

Four soldiers died in a single blast during search operations north-west of Baghdad on Sunday, the military said.

On the same day, two US soldiers were killed and five wounded in two separate roadside blasts.

In May, 127 US soldiers were killed in Iraq, the deadliest month for US forces since November 2004.

In Saturday's attacks, one soldier died and two others were wounded in an explosion near a vehicle in restive Diyala province, north of Baghdad, where US troops are fighting an al-Qaeda insurgency.

Another soldier was killed in a separate attack in Diyala.

Two Task Force Lightning soldiers were killed when their patrol was hit by a roadside bomb in northern Nineveh province.

In western Baghdad, a roadside bomb killed one Multi-National Division - Baghdad soldier and wounded two others during clashes.

Another soldier from the same division died and eight were wounded in a roadside bombing elsewhere in western Baghdad.

One Task Force Marne soldier died after being shot while on patrol south of Baghdad, the military said.

On Friday, one Task Force Marne soldier died after approaching two men for questioning near a mosque south-west of Baghdad. The military had earlier reported that this soldier had died on Saturday.

At least 3,490 US troops have died since the US-led invasion in March 2003.

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: Dari
Topic Title: Fourteen US Soldiers killed in the first three days of June
Topic Summary: Not really newsworthy anymore, I guess

That's roughly 5/day. These damn roadside bombs are as lethal as ever. Somebody tell me again why we are still in Iraq?

It's in my Iraq thread.

Is it "newsworthy" anymore?

Probably not since the MSM media as well as the American public are numb to it.

That is by design of course by this Administration.

After all he he said there be more U.S. deaths.

In this case sadly he is actually true to his word.

 

[jpeyton]

Not only more lethal, but their tactics are more cunning. For example, downing a helicopter, and then using roadside bombs against the rapid response teams en route.

It's only going to get worse for soldiers from here on out. This isn't like our occupation of Japan. American soldiers will be dropping like flies for decades to come.

 

[dahunan]

At least this war has brought great things for the citizens of america and we are all safer now

 

[Craig234]

What worries me is that the war would have far higher political support if a way were found to do it with few US casualties; the legal issues, principles, and other nations' casualties are not really important to many US voters it seems.

That doesn't bode well for the ability of the political system to stop wrong, aggressive wars later if the US casualties can be kept low. Genocide against Native Americans didn't get the public to oppose it. Starting a war with Mexico to take half their land didn't get the public to stop it (though many republicans, including Lincoln, spoke out as a minority view). Killing millions of Vietnamese didn't stop that war (again, US casualties were what counted).

Other nations have not had the public stop such wars too well either. France, England, Portugal, etc. all have histories of vicious colonization the public didn't stop. China and Russia, very vicious imperialism. The US may have the strongest political element of the public demanding its government do right of any world power - but it's not that much.

Is the Iraq war REALLY wrong because of the US casualties, or for other reasons, and if other reasons, then why should the US casualties seem to play the biggest part in driving public opinion?

 

[Genx87]

What a surprise, more troops in the zone, more deaths.

I told you this in 2004 when one of the democratic rallying calls was Bush didnt invade with more troops and that we needed to double or triple the size of the force. The bottom line is by the end of the year the Iraqis have to start taking over considerable control of the security situation in the hotbed.

 

[jpeyton]

Originally posted by: Genx87
The bottom line is by the end of the year the Iraqis have to start taking over considerable control of the security situation in the hotbed.

Just from historical evidence gathered over the last 4 years, the Iraqis are not taking over security anytime soon. Even if they did (which I sincerely doubt), we're establishing a large military occupation for the next decade; our soldiers will increasingly be in the cross-hairs as native Iraqis (e.g., insurgents and militias) gain more control over their country.

There are no benchmarks and zero accountability for the Iraqis. Bush made sure of it.

 

[dahunan]

Originally posted by: jpeyton

Originally posted by: Genx87
The bottom line is by the end of the year the Iraqis have to start taking over considerable control of the security situation in the hotbed.

Just from historical evidence gathered over the last 4 years, the Iraqis are not taking over security anytime soon. Even if they did (which I sincerely doubt), we're establishing a large military occupation for the next decade; our soldiers will increasingly be in the cross-hairs as native Iraqis (e.g., insurgents and militias) gain more control over their country.

There are no benchmarks and zero accountability for the Iraqis. Bush made sure of it.

One of Cheneys claims in the 04 elections was that Iraq had like 100 batallions ready to protect their country - I cannot find the quote right now.. but there is some crap down there for all you suckers who believe cheney

Cheney from white house press pages - not going to link it because they suck

There are over 100 Iraqi combat battalions fighting the terrorists, along with our forces today. More than a dozen military bases our coalition used to occupy have been turned back to the Iraqis. Gradually, Iraqi forces are taking control of more and more territory, and as they undertake further missions on their own, confidence is growing within the country and more intelligence tips are coming in from the Iraqi people themselves.

 

[1EZduzit]

Originally posted by: dahunan

Originally posted by: jpeyton

Originally posted by: Genx87
The bottom line is by the end of the year the Iraqis have to start taking over considerable control of the security situation in the hotbed.

Just from historical evidence gathered over the last 4 years, the Iraqis are not taking over security anytime soon. Even if they did (which I sincerely doubt), we're establishing a large military occupation for the next decade; our soldiers will increasingly be in the cross-hairs as native Iraqis (e.g., insurgents and militias) gain more control over their country.

There are no benchmarks and zero accountability for the Iraqis. Bush made sure of it.

One of Cheneys claims in the 04 elections was that Iraq had like 100 batallions ready to protect their country - I cannot find the quote right now.. but there is some crap down there for all you suckers who believe cheney

Cheney from white house press pages - not going to link it because they suck

There are over 100 Iraqi combat battalions fighting the terrorists, along with our forces today. More than a dozen military bases our coalition used to occupy have been turned back to the Iraqis. Gradually, Iraqi forces are taking control of more and more territory, and as they undertake further missions on their own, confidence is growing within the country and more intelligence tips are coming in from the Iraqi people themselves.

Rumsfield was claiming the same thing, but it was nothing but a bald faced lie. They were paying them but they didn't even have to show up for muster let alone do any actual fighting.

Funny how in 4 years we were able to train the army that won WW2 but we can't seem to train an army for a country to defend itself...... and people say the Iraq war doesn't compare to the Vietnam war. The longer they drag this out, the richer the war pigs get.

 

[GrGr]

Originally posted by: Craig234
What worries me is that the war would have far higher political support if a way were found to do it with few US casualties; the legal issues, principles, and other nations' casualties are not really important to many US voters it seems.

That doesn't bode well for the ability of the political system to stop wrong, aggressive wars later if the US casualties can be kept low. Genocide against Native Americans didn't get the public to oppose it. Starting a war with Mexico to take half their land didn't get the public to stop it (though many republicans, including Lincoln, spoke out as a minority view). Killing millions of Vietnamese didn't stop that war (again, US casualties were what counted).

Other nations have not had the public stop such wars too well either. France, England, Portugal, etc. all have histories of vicious colonization the public didn't stop. China and Russia, very vicious imperialism. The US may have the strongest political element of the public demanding its government do right of any world power - but it's not that much.

Is the Iraq war REALLY wrong because of the US casualties, or for other reasons, and if other reasons, then why should the US casualties seem to play the biggest part in driving public opinion?

Hear, hear. Well said.