Iraq Insurgents Kill 21 Soldiers, Five Marines

[BBond]

Grim news from Iraq this morning. A roadside bomb has killed 5 U.S. Marines. And all for what? The "war on terror"? Iraq had nothing to do with "terror". America's security? Iraq had nothing to do with keeping America secure.

A pack of goddam lies?

BINGO.

Iraq Insurgents Kill 21 Soldiers, Five Marines

Naseer Al-Nahr, Arab News

BAGHDAD, 11 June 2005 ? At least 21 bodies were found close to Iraq?s border with Syria yesterday while five US Marines were killed in a roadside bomb explosion.

Eyewitnesses said that one group with 12 bodies had their hands tied behind their backs and were wearing civilian clothes. They were found near a small hamlet called Jabab, about 30 km east of Qaim. It was unclear when they were killed.

There were another nine bodies found near Qaim outside the village of Fosfat. They were also in civilian clothes and had civilian identification cards.

It was unclear if the bodies had any relation to a group of about 20 Iraqi soldiers that have been missing from the Qaim area since late Tuesday.

Qaim, an insurgent hotbed 322 km west of Baghdad, has been the scene of numerous US military and Iraqi army operations. US Marines carried out two major operations in the area last month. A total of 11 Marines were killed in the campaigns.

Al-Qaeda in Iraq, the terror group led by Jordanian-born Abu Mussab Al-Zarqawi, claimed in an Internet posting that it had abducted a total of 36 Iraqi soldiers in western Iraq on Wednesday. The posting carried on a website known to carry militant statement could not be independently verified.

?A group of the infidel guards was arrested and investigated Wednesday,? It said. The group added that the men confessed their crimes ?against Sunnis and their loyalty to crusaders.? To release them, it gave the Shiite-led government of Prime Minister Ibrahim Jaafari a day to set free ?Muslim women? held in Iraqi prisons. It did not elaborate.

Capt. Ahmed Hamid said the soldiers went missing Tuesday afternoon after leaving an Iraqi Army base in two minibuses from Akashat, a remote village near the Syrian border about 110 km southwest of Qaim.

Hamid, contacted by telephone at an Iraqi military base in Qaim, said the soldiers were wearing civilian clothes and traveling to Baghdad for a vacation.

The US military said the five Marines were killed Thursday while conducting combat operations near the volatile Anbar province town of Haqlaniyah, 145 km northwest of Baghdad.

The Marines were assigned to the Regimental Combat Team 2, 2nd Marine Division, II Marine Expeditionary Force. Their identities are being withheld pending next-of-kin notification. As of yesterday, at least 1,689 US military members have died since the Iraq war began in March 2003, according to an Associated Press count.

Late at night, a car bomb killed four men and injured another nine as they sat outside a takeaway restaurant in northwestern Baghdad. The men were waiting outside the eatery located in a working class district to pick up falafel sandwiches.

On the political front, leaders of the country?s Sunni minority rejected a compromise offer on giving them more say in the drafting of a constitution.

It was not clear how the Shiite-dominated National Assembly and government would react to the rejection by the main Sunni political group of an offer of more seats on the parliamentary committee charged with drafting a constitution by Aug. 15.

Further wrangling could jeopardize that deadline.

A spokesman for the Gathering of the Sunni People said they would hold out for 25 seats against the 15 on offer. He said they would boycott negotiations if arbitration by a three-person panel consisting of a Sunni, a parliamentary representative and a United Nations official failed to settle the matter.

?We will not agree and will not concede any seat,? spokesman Adnan Al-Dulaimi said. ?If they refuse our demand we will resort to arbitration. If they insist then we will suspend our participation.?

Calls for a boycott and insurgent violence in Sunni areas meant few of the formerly dominant 20-percent minority took part in the Jan. 30 election. Only 17 Sunnis sit in Parliament and only two are now on the 55-seat constitutional committee.

? Additional input from agencies

 

[Gaard]

And all for what?

The reason given turned out to be a falsehood. My personal opinion is that the real reason they wanted this war (yes, imo, BushCo 'wanted' this war) was never given to us. So they either died for a lie, or they died for some 'unspoken' reason. Either way, they (we) should never have gone there in the first place.

 

[Infohawk]

[parody]'OMG you guys we already have ten anti-war threads. Maybe we should create an uber-thread? :shocked: What do you think this is? P&N?' [/parody]

 

[imported_Tango]

Originally posted by: Gaard

And all for what?

The reason given turned out to be a falsehood. My personal opinion is that the real reason they wanted this war (yes, imo, BushCo 'wanted' this war) was never given to us. So they either died for a lie, or they died for some 'unspoken' reason. Either way, they (we) should never have gone there in the first place.

The real reason wasn't understandable by most of the country. It's geopolitics. Having a foot in the area to guarantee the future possibility of fast military intervention in the Gulf region.
But you will not sell an expensive and bloody war based on this, so you need the weapons of mass destruction make-up job.

 

[Engineer]

Originally posted by: Tango

Originally posted by: Gaard

And all for what?

The reason given turned out to be a falsehood. My personal opinion is that the real reason they wanted this war (yes, imo, BushCo 'wanted' this war) was never given to us. So they either died for a lie, or they died for some 'unspoken' reason. Either way, they (we) should never have gone there in the first place.

The real reason wasn't understandable by most of the country. It's geopolitics. Having a foot in the area to guarantee the future possibility of fast military intervention in the Gulf region.
But you will not sell an expensive and bloody war based on this, so you need the weapons of mass destruction make-up job.

i.e. A LIE!

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: Tango

Originally posted by: Gaard

And all for what?

The reason given turned out to be a falsehood. My personal opinion is that the real reason they wanted this war (yes, imo, BushCo 'wanted' this war) was never given to us. So they either died for a lie, or they died for some 'unspoken' reason. Either way, they (we) should never have gone there in the first place.

The real reason wasn't understandable by most of the country. It's geopolitics. Having a foot in the area to guarantee the future possibility of fast military intervention in the Gulf region.
But you will not sell an expensive and bloody war based on this, so you need the weapons of mass destruction make-up job.

I've thought about this many times, and I tend to agree that those reasons probably make the most sense out of any explanation from either side. But this is still a democracy, if Bush couldn't sell his war without making up some excuse, should he really have done it?

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: BBond
Topic Title: Iraq Insurgents Kill 21 Soldiers, Five Marines
Topic Summary: And all for what?

The President says they died for our Country.

 

[imported_Tango]

Originally posted by: Rainsford

Originally posted by: Tango

Originally posted by: Gaard

And all for what?

The reason given turned out to be a falsehood. My personal opinion is that the real reason they wanted this war (yes, imo, BushCo 'wanted' this war) was never given to us. So they either died for a lie, or they died for some 'unspoken' reason. Either way, they (we) should never have gone there in the first place.

The real reason wasn't understandable by most of the country. It's geopolitics. Having a foot in the area to guarantee the future possibility of fast military intervention in the Gulf region.
But you will not sell an expensive and bloody war based on this, so you need the weapons of mass destruction make-up job.

I've thought about this many times, and I tend to agree that those reasons probably make the most sense out of any explanation from either side. But this is still a democracy, if Bush couldn't sell his war without making up some excuse, should he really have done it?

Well.. it depends... when I discuss something here on P&N usually I get labeled like an anti-Bush liberal. In fact I am not. I perfectly understand the reasons of this government. I just don't think it's a nice move to trade the lives of thousands of people with an enlargement of the sphere of political influence in the Middle East.

Bush is a liar, but almost all the politics are. Do you really think Clinton cared about people in Serbia? Hey, I loved Clinton, but truth is he couldn't have cared less about Milosevic and the war in Kosovo.

Last year the new serbian leader was assassinated and nobody around the world cared. The people who governed with Milosevic took power back, and nobody cares. Most networks here in the US didn't even tell the story. Not even for one day. Back 5 years ago it looked like Serbia was the center of the world, and everybody was sure we really MUST give back serbian people their freedom from Milosevic.

It's politics. You just cannot say: "we are willing to trade the lives of your sons for some more geopolitical influence on an area that our experts consider of critical importance in the following years, due to the energy resources and strategical placement in the Gulf area". Nobody would understand it. Much better to say "we are going to fight for freedom, against terror and for your security". Everybody will undertstand that. True or false.

 

[rickn]

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: BBond
Topic Title: Iraq Insurgents Kill 21 Soldiers, Five Marines
Topic Summary: And all for what?

The President says they died for our Country.

what Bush really means to say is they died for our country while obeying the orders of a scumbag (Bush)

 

[Steeplerot]

The government never says what it means or gets much right anyway....How together and efficent is your local city government? same deal on federal level.

It is up to the people to hold them accountable...not blindly defend every mistake and lie just becasue they sit in dc...that is not a democracy.

 

[tommywishbone]

"All for what?" This whole thing has always been and continues to be nothing but a big-azz armed robbery. Just like me & the boys knocking off the Piggly-Wiggly and getting $8,500, but it's W & his thugs stealing $100 billion in oil. The madness continues.

War on terror..... give me a break.

 

[Gamingphreek]

And all for what? The "war on terror"? Iraq had nothing to do with "terror". America's security? Iraq had nothing to do with keeping America secure.

I will have to disagree.

While it is undeniable that the oil had something to do with it, im very sure that Iraq was a threat. It might not have occured to you that the president/cabinet do not release every piece of intelligence to the general public, hence it would cease to be intelligence.

Additionally Iraq was not a peaceful country, and sooner or later something would have to have been done. Saddam committed genocide (Kurds), he invaded another country, he ruled with absolute authority, disobeyed the UN. You people keep putting Bush down, however, what do you think he is doing. Sitting in his office laughing:

"Ha ha... there goes three more fathers/mothers/sons. I love this"

No, im sure it is tearing him apart! Im also equally sure that if we had not acted in Afghanistan/Iraq that there would have been another attack. Bush was faced with a decision no person wants to make. Sure there were economic benefits; however, no person would send people off to die for money. Our president did what he did because something had to be done.

Would you have rather waited until Saddam/Osama had a larger arsenal, or wait until there was another attack on the US? Then what, thousands of other people would have died first. And those would have been the people who signed up to fight for our country, those would be innocent Men, Women, and Children.

I fully understand that people disagree with this, however, i feel that some respect (hell i think bush deserves a lot of respect) should be given. He is our president, he was elected fairly (believe it or not), and as i said earlier, im very sure he being ripped to pieces knowing that families are getting torn apart.

-Kevin

 

[Steeplerot]

Bush was faced with a decision no person wants to make and lied his ass off doing it.

 

[Gamingphreek]

Originally posted by: Steeplerot
Bush was faced with a decision no person wants to make and lied his ass off doing it.

How do you know he lied? Do you have access to every piece of inteligence he does/did? You could argue the fact that neither do I, which of course i completely true. However, no president, hell no person (sane of course), wants to see people die. Bush is no exception.

-Kevin

 

[Engineer]

Originally posted by: Gamingphreek

Originally posted by: Steeplerot
Bush was faced with a decision no person wants to make and lied his ass off doing it.

How do you know he lied? Do you have access to every piece of inteligence he does/did? You could argue the fact that neither do I, which of course i completely true. However, no president, hell no person (sane of course), wants to see people die. Bush is no exception.

-Kevin

Three letters...

WMD

=

LIE

Iraq wasn't worth one fvcking cent!!! PERIOD! :|

Fvck Bush and Fvck Iraq!

 

[Gamingphreek]

You wanna know the reason it appears that way? Because of all the goddamn terrorism! Do you think the innocent civilians are causing these problems?? No, it is the supporters of Saddam and Osama.

Its a wonder you can have a conversation with that attitude.

-Kevin

 

[rickn]

Originally posted by: Gamingphreek

Originally posted by: Steeplerot
Bush was faced with a decision no person wants to make and lied his ass off doing it.

How do you know he lied? Do you have access to every piece of inteligence he does/did? You could argue the fact that neither do I, which of course i completely true. However, no president, hell no person (sane of course), wants to see people die. Bush is no exception.

-Kevin

you just proved his point. Bush had it his disposal intelligence that we only wish we had before went to war, cuz it would have shown there was massive doubt and intelligence failures about what Iraq did possess, and no way would the american public went along with with his little Iraq Adventure

 

[Steeplerot]

Terrorism? Thought it was WMD or hussein?

Keep grasping for straws at why the resident of your city died...

He is still dead.

And no idealism or half-assed justification of the week can change that..

 

[Gaard]

Originally posted by: Gamingphreek

And all for what? The "war on terror"? Iraq had nothing to do with "terror". America's security? Iraq had nothing to do with keeping America secure.

I will have to disagree.

While it is undeniable that the oil had something to do with it, im very sure that Iraq was a threat. It might not have occured to you that the president/cabinet do not release every piece of intelligence to the general public, hence it would cease to be intelligence.

Additionally Iraq was not a peaceful country, and sooner or later something would have to have been done. Saddam committed genocide (Kurds), he invaded another country, he ruled with absolute authority, disobeyed the UN. You people keep putting Bush down, however, what do you think he is doing. Sitting in his office laughing:

"Ha ha... there goes three more fathers/mothers/sons. I love this"

No, im sure it is tearing him apart! Im also equally sure that if we had not acted in Afghanistan/Iraq that there would have been another attack. Bush was faced with a decision no person wants to make. Sure there were economic benefits; however, no person would send people off to die for money. Our president did what he did because something had to be done.

Would you have rather waited until Saddam/Osama had a larger arsenal, or wait until there was another attack on the US? Then what, thousands of other people would have died first. And those would have been the people who signed up to fight for our country, those would be innocent Men, Women, and Children.

I fully understand that people disagree with this, however, i feel that some respect (hell i think bush deserves a lot of respect) should be given. He is our president, he was elected fairly (believe it or not), and as i said earlier, im very sure he being ripped to pieces knowing that families are getting torn apart.

-Kevin

BushCo (pre-war) - "What to do. What to do. We need to conquer Iraq but how do we get the support to do it? Wait a minnit! Yes, that's it! We'll do our damnest to link 9/11 and Iraq, and get the American public all up in arms...fearful and vengeful at the same time. The sheep will swallow whatever I tell them. It'll work, I tell ya!"

 

[Engineer]

Originally posted by: Gamingphreek
You wanna know the reason it appears that way? Because of all the goddamn terrorism! Do you think the innocent civilians are causing these problems?? No, it is the supporters of Saddam and Osama.

Its a wonder you can have a conversation with that attitude.

-Kevin

Saddam had nothing to do with it. We've spent billions on worthless Iraq and Osama runs free to this day. You figure it out.

Goddamn terrorism? There was no terrorism from Iraq before we went there. It's a fvcking scam. 90% of the goddamn terrorists of 9/11 were from Saudi Arabia, but you don't see us doing a goddamn thing to those fvckers - because they are in bed with Bush already and Saddam, the man as Bush quoted "of course he's a bad man, he tried to kill my daddy" wasn't!

If you don't like my attitude on Iraq and asswipe Bush, don't read and respond. I don't think it was worth ONE LIFE OR CENT for that lie of a war in IRAQ! PERIOD! :|

 

[rickn]

I think I heard on the news that Saudi's make up around 60% of the suicide bombers in Iraq, Saudi women are one of the most oppressed, even women can vote in Iran, but not SA. And yet somehow we are to believe they're are friends. They can ride that camel back to mecca

 

[Gamingphreek]

You are portraying bush to be some diabolical super villian, which is COMPLETELY wrong.

You do have some errors. We have no conquered Iraq. We have defeeated their armed forces and we have established a government for them. However the government is too weak right now to enforce anything yet. Hence the reason we are there.

9-11 and Iraq were linked whether you want to believe it or not. Do you somehow think that Saddam and Osama are just happy, jolly big fellas that look similiar to Santa Clause or something. Both of them were evil in every way. Saddam: Ruled with absolute power, Genocide vs Kurds, Disobeyed UN time and again, Invaded another country. Osama: Responsible for the deaths of thousands, leader of one of the largest terrorist organizations in the world.

And you guys have the nerve to call Bush horrible, those acts were not Bushes fault. I do agree that intelligence could possibly have been flawed in some wawy unbeknownst to us, however, in no way did our president wish to have 1000's of American live, of any lives, ended. That was the work of Saddam (though perhaps indirectly), and Osama.

-Kevin

 

[Engineer]

Originally posted by: Gamingphreek
You are portraying bush to be some diabolical super villian, which is COMPLETELY wrong.

You do have some errors. We have no conquered Iraq. We have defeeated their armed forces and we have established a government for them. However the government is too weak right now to enforce anything yet. Hence the reason we are there.

9-11 and Iraq were linked whether you want to believe it or not. Do you somehow think that Saddam and Osama are just happy, jolly big fellas that look similiar to Santa Clause or something. Both of them were evil in every way. Saddam: Ruled with absolute power, Genocide vs Kurds, Disobeyed UN time and again, Invaded another country. Osama: Responsible for the deaths of thousands, leader of one of the largest terrorist organizations in the world.

And you guys have the nerve to call Bush horrible, those acts were not Bushes fault. I do agree that intelligence could possibly have been flawed in some wawy unbeknownst to us, however, in no way did our president wish to have 1000's of American live, of any lives, ended. That was the work of Saddam (though perhaps indirectly), and Osama.

-Kevin

Apologist - spin- apologist - spin. Bushshit! End of story.

Say it again and get the same response. The rest of the people in the US are starting to wake up. I guess you fanboys are forever dead on the subject! :roll:

29% now think that the war was WORTH fighting. Glad you're in the minority!

Why don't you join up and go fight the "evil dooers" in Iraq?

 

[rickn]

Originally posted by: Gamingphreek
You are portraying bush to be some diabolical super villian, which is COMPLETELY wrong.

You do have some errors. We have no conquered Iraq. We have defeeated their armed forces and we have established a government for them. However the government is too weak right now to enforce anything yet. Hence the reason we are there.

9-11 and Iraq were linked whether you want to believe it or not. Do you somehow think that Saddam and Osama are just happy, jolly big fellas that look similiar to Santa Clause or something. Both of them were evil in every way. Saddam: Ruled with absolute power, Genocide vs Kurds, Disobeyed UN time and again, Invaded another country. Osama: Responsible for the deaths of thousands, leader of one of the largest terrorist organizations in the world.

And you guys have the nerve to call Bush horrible, those acts were not Bushes fault. I do agree that intelligence could possibly have been flawed in some wawy unbeknownst to us, however, in no way did our president wish to have 1000's of American live, of any lives, ended. That was the work of Saddam (though perhaps indirectly), and Osama.

-Kevin

Osama didn't like Saddam, why would he be involved with him. He did not like a secular iraq with women running around unscarved, women working in government. he hated it. There may have been "associates" of AQ that may have had dealings with Saddam, but there is no link between AQ or Saddam and 9/11, and to say it is you're just making stuff up.

 

[Gamingphreek]

Originally posted by: Engineer

Originally posted by: Gamingphreek
You wanna know the reason it appears that way? Because of all the goddamn terrorism! Do you think the innocent civilians are causing these problems?? No, it is the supporters of Saddam and Osama.

Its a wonder you can have a conversation with that attitude.

-Kevin

Saddam had nothing to do with it. We've spent billions on worthless Iraq and Osama runs free to this day. You figure it out.

Goddamn terrorism? There was no terrorism from Iraq before we went there. It's a fvcking scam. 90% of the goddamn terrorists of 9/11 were from Saudi Arabia, but you don't see us doing a goddamn thing to those fvckers - because they are in bed with Bush already and Saddam, the man as Bush quoted "of course he's a bad man, he tried to kill my daddy" wasn't!

If you don't like my attitude on Iraq and asswipe Bush, don't read and respond. I don't think it was worth ONE LIFE OR CENT for that lie of a war in IRAQ! PERIOD! :|

No terrorism from iraq huh? Well there is always the fact that Iraq invaded Kuat. Its leader comitted Genocide, Its leader disobeyed the will of the UN (to disarm). What would you call those acts if not terrorism.

You wanna know why we aren't in SA yet? Because while a majority still support Bush, there is still a vast amount of people who do not. Without giving away every bit of intelligence hes gained Bush would not have the full support of the american people. It is sad really. We know where the root of the problem is, but popularity holds us back from doing anything.

Im happy that you disagree with him. I am not insulting you or your stance. If you havent noticed Mr. Elite Member, the purpose of these forums is to argue. Which is what i am doing.

-Kevin