US soldiers 'found dead' in Iraq

[dreamer]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/mid...st/5098186.stm

Two US soldiers missing in Iraq since Friday have been found dead south of Baghdad, Iraq's defence ministry says. Spokesman Gen Abdul Aziz Mohammed said the bodies were found in the Yusifiya area. The US military has not yet confirmed the statement. An insurgent group linked to al-Qaeda in Iraq had claimed it abducted the soldiers from a checkpoint.

[Apeman81]

Ho-hum. 2 soldiers captured, reportedly tortured, and killed in what been reported as a "barbaric" manner.

Japan's pulling out its troops. We shouldn't be there anyway, It's Bush's fault.

My prayers for the families and friends of the fallen soldiers and thanks to their comrades who recognize the importance of their mission. As one who has trod in your boots, Thank you.

[rmnunez]

"Al Qaeda in Iraq" (a fictitious character according to critical lefties here) has claimed full "responsibility" for the barbaric slaughter of both united statians.

[PatrickHenry]

Quote by: Apeman81 Ho-hum. 2 soldiers captured, reportedly tortured, and killed in what been reported as a "barbaric" manner. Japan's pulling out its troops. We shouldn't be there anyway, It's Bush's fault. My prayers for the families and friends of the fallen soldiers and thanks to their comrades who recognize the importance of their mission. As one who has trod in your boots, Thank you.

I think I recognize some irony in your second paragraph, Apeman. The hohum is unfortunate, because these young soldiers signed up to defend the United States. Not to serve as an occupying force in a land not their own, which poses no risk to their nation. Their sacrifice is meaningless. Doesn't make it less painful to those who wish they were safe at home defending America, like they had envisioned.

[rmnunez]

After more than 3 years of Iraqi intervention occupying most of the united statian military, how accurate is it to say most signed up "to defend the US" rather than "serve as an occupying force" a broad? Isn't the regular term of enlistment just 3 years?

[PatrickHenry]

Are you saying, "They shoulda known", Nunez?

That they are just more cannon fodder?

That their oath is just a sham, a smokescreen for US Empire? That's a little too sophisticated for a recruit isn't it?

Any word on their ages or length of service?

[Apeman81]

Quote by: PatrickHenry I think I recognize some irony in your second paragraph, Apeman. The hohum is unfortunate, because these young soldiers signed up to defend the United States. Not to serve as an occupying force in a land not their own, which poses no risk to their nation. Their sacrifice is meaningless. Doesn't make it less painful to those who wish they were safe at home defending America, like they had envisioned.

When I was a young soldier, and then later an old sodlier, I recognized that being part of an "occupying force in a land not their own" could actually be an integral part of what it takes to "defend the United States".

"Their sacrifice is meaningless."? Hardly. Not as long as their fellows hold faith in their mission and fight to achieve the goal of a Iraq of, by and for Iraqis.

I disagree with your premise, and agree to do so.

P.S. The "ho-hum" is also representative of irony, as this thread has stood stagnant while the important "woman jailed for giving lover HIV" has had a number of posts

[Autolykos]

Quote by: Apeman81 When I was a young soldier, and then later an old sodlier, I recognized that being part of an "occupying force in a land not their own" could actually be an integral part of what it takes to "defend the United States".

I'd like you to explain this position in greater detail. While you're at it, explain how an occupying force in a land not their own is not de facto imperialism.

Quote by: Apeman81 "Their sacrifice is meaningless."? Hardly. Not as long as their fellows hold faith in their mission and fight to achieve the goal of a Iraq of, by and for Iraqis.

It seems to be an open question as to whether such a mission actually exists and whether those "fellows" are indeed "fighting" to achieve such a "goal".

Quote by: Apeman81 I disagree with your premise, and agree to do so.

In other words, your mind is closed to alternative possibilities and thus you do not want to face them. :rolleyes:

- Rob

[PatrickHenry]

Quote by: Apeman81 ... faith in their mission and fight to achieve the goal of a Iraq of, by and for Iraqis...

Then I asssume you were in favor of General Garner's goals/plan for Iraq, and opposed to the methods of "Medal of Freedom" Bremer. Garner wanted a quick return to Iraqi sovereignty while the Pentagon overlords saw to it that the nation's assets were sold off first...leading directly into this deadly "insurgency."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jay_Garner

It has been suggested that Garner was moved aside because he did not agree with Washington Neo-Conservatives about who should decide how to reconstruct Iraq. He wanted early elections - 90 days after the fall of Bagdhad, and the new government to decide how to run the country and what to do with their assets. The Neo-Conservative plan was to start the selling off of the countries assets including Iraq’s large oil assets and holding elections later. Garners responded to this by saying "I don't think [Iraqis] need to go by the U.S. plan, I think that what we need to do is set an Iraqi government that represents the freely elected will of the people. It's their country… their oil.”

[brien]

Quote by: PatrickHenry I think I recognize some irony in your second paragraph, Apeman. The hohum is unfortunate, because these young soldiers signed up to defend the United States. Not to serve as an occupying force in a land not their own, which poses no risk to their nation. Their sacrifice is meaningless. Doesn't make it less painful to those who wish they were safe at home defending America, like they had envisioned.

Well said PH. However, these boys probably joined up while this so called war in Iraq was already ongoing. So they probably knew what they were getting into there. But the bottom line is this so called war is an abomination and their deaths will only mean something to the people of Iraq, if that. Iraq doesn't really make a bit of difference to the survival of the US. Even on the oil side. No Iraqi oil, we will get it somewhere else. We only immported 10% of our oil before the UN sanctioned Iraq anyway. Or we will develop alternative fuel faster than we are doing now. A good thing.

No, there will be no monuments to US soldiers in Iraq, no monuments for those two boys, just a lonely wooden white cross for each in Arlington National Cemetery.

[bishop]

at the end of the day, their deaths will be little more than another statistic added on to the list of soldiers who've been killed/maimed in bush's unnecessary war. and still, the iraqis have their desertion policy, while american soldiers are little more than cannon fodder.. bodies to take the hits so that iraqis don't have to defend their own country.

this is the price of maintaining bush's policy where the iraqis are increasingly dependent on u.s. troops.. the "stay the course" non-policy will only lead to continued dependence on u.s. troops, making it even more difficult to withdraw. i think some of the imperialists actually want to see iraqi dependence solidify into something that truly is permanent - a good base of operations next to iran.

[RickSp]

Three soldiers stationed at a checkpoint in a hostile land on the other side of the world. Three more tragic deaths in a meaningless war. More cannon fodder for the empire.

[rmnunez]

Are you saying, "They shoulda known", Nunez?

No, I'm saying anyone on duty in Iraq in the US armed forces, knew at the time he (or she) enlisted or re-upped, that there was a substantial likelyhood their responsibilities would include deployment as an occupation force in Iraq with Afghanistan as the most likely alternative.

That they are just more cannon fodder?

Artillery is not often used in Iraq.

That their oath is just a sham, a smokescreen for US Empire? That's a little too sophisticated for a recruit isn't it?

I suppose that oath can be subject to a variety of interpretations, the more radical of which (probably favioured by critical lefties and their fellow travellers) includes its 'shaminess'. Under my interpretation, the oath of national defence may sensibly include the need for forward deployment at sources of threat.

Any word on their ages or length of service?

Both were non-coms, I think one was a PFC, I'd estimate in their mid twenties.

[Apeman81]

Quote by: PatrickHenry Then I asssume you were in favor of General Garner's goals/plan for Iraq, and opposed to the methods of "Medal of Freedom" Bremer. Garner wanted a quick return to Iraqi sovereignty while the Pentagon overlords saw to it that the nation's assets were sold off first...leading directly into this deadly "insurgency." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jay_Garner

I find the idea of having elections in a nation that had been without them (at least the somewhat free and kind of fair type) do be a bit naive. Nor do I believe that pulling the troops out of the cities and letting the factions go at it (the outcome of such a move) is the proper way of helping an oppressed people gain their footing in order to build a new nation.

The “insurgency” did not suddenly appear due to an “occupation” of Iraq. I find that belief to be naïve. It also ignores history. Before the first bomb dropped in Iraq, discussions were underway warning of the ability of the Baathists and terrorist factions to remove their uniforms and melt into the countryside, blending with civilians form among whom they could launch a terrorist war. That this occurred is no surprise.

If the cities had been abandoned, so much the better for the minute percentage of the population, with its foreign leaders, to wage war upon the people interested in establishing a free Iraq.

No, I don’t support that plan of action.

[Apeman81]

“Autolykos]I'd like you to explain this position in greater detail. While you're at it, explain how an occupying force in a land not their own is not de facto imperialism.”

At the close of WWII, the Allies maintained troops in both Germany and Japan ( al land not their own) as those countries, freed from the tyranny that reigned over their nation, found a new way to govern themselves.

Your use of the term “occupying” is sophistry. While it can be said that the US has placed Iraq “under the control of a foreign military”, is has relinquished control of the government to one it allowed the Iraqi people to create at the ballot box, and is working daily to give more and more military control over as it becomes able to. These are not the actions of a government trying to “control” another nation.

“It seems to be an open question as to whether such a mission actually exists and whether those "fellows" are indeed "fighting" to achieve such a "goal".”

Anyone can question anything. That questioning in no way alters what is actually taking place, but it does evidence the perception of the questioner.

“In other words, your mind is closed to alternative possibilities and thus you do not want to face them. :rolleyes:”

I was unaware that to disagree with the opinion of another occurs as the result of a closed mind. I was under the, apparently spurious, impression that one could weigh the alternatives and come to a decision having viewed and considered all the evidence.

Silly me.

[Marilyn Monroe]

This makes me very sad, and angry.

It's hard to not want to blame Bush for it, and usually that's where we tend to go, but I don't know where we should go with the anger. I think we need to be angry at a world that is so vicious. How can this viciousness be tamed? That's the big, milion dollar question.

[bishop]

shock & awe, and white phosphorous are definitely the best ways to tame viciousness...

[Zeebadee]

Quote by: rmnunez Under my interpretation, the oath of national defence may sensibly include the need for forward deployment at sources of threat.

What pure, unadulterated horseshit. Iraq was NEVER a threat to us, and there was NEVER a need for "forward deployment" to that shithole. If Iraqi's want freedom and democracy, they need to get it on their own, like Poland, Romania, East Germany, and a bunch of other nations did. Every life lost, every soldier maimed, every dollar spent has been for the vanity and political gain of the a$$hole politicians that created this monstrous miscalculation of a war that was supposed to make bush look like a "liberator". To continue to try and make us believe that these poor kids, (and that's exactly what most of them are, kids), died for us, to preserve our freedom, is horrendously insulting to both their sacrifice, and our intelligence. I just can't verbalize what contempt I feel for those that continue the call to "stay the course" when it's someone else's kids that are paying the check. I used to think that there was nothing lower than a politician or lawyer, but chickenhawks are the absolute lowest.

[Apeman81]

Quote by: Zeebadee What pure, unadulterated horseshit. Iraq was NEVER a threat to us, and there was NEVER a need for "forward deployment" to that shithole. If Iraqi's want freedom and democracy, they need to get it on their own, like Poland, Romania, East Germany, and a bunch of other nations did. Every life lost, every soldier maimed, every dollar spent has been for the vanity and political gain of the a$$hole politicians that created this monstrous miscalculation of a war that was supposed to make bush look like a "liberator". To continue to try and make us believe that these poor kids, (and that's exactly what most of them are, kids), died for us, to preserve our freedom, is horrendously insulting to both their sacrifice, and our intelligence. I just can't verbalize what contempt I feel for those that continue the call to "stay the course" when it's someone else's kids that are paying the check. I used to think that there was nothing lower than a politician or lawyer, but chickenhawks are the absolute lowest.

A rather anger filled reaction, considering your interpretation of the events in question are formed of opinion.

You believe the war to be for less than honorable reasons, as is your want.

But to generalize the U.S. Armed Forces as "kids", as if they are simply to young and naive to know what they are fighting for, is insulting beyond my ability to refrain from commenting.

I was one of those "Kids" from 1981 to 2003. At the time of my retirement, I had 3 grandchildren. I was NOT the oldest member of my unit.

I went to many a foreign land to fight at my country's behest. I volunteered to serve. I re-enlisted several times. I was well aware of the world around me and the policies of my government. I was not alone in this.

The attitude that you are smarter than the sodliers is insulting.

[Autolykos]

Quote by: Apeman81 Quote by: Autolykos I'd like you to explain this position in greater detail. While you're at it, explain how an occupying force in a land not their own is not de facto imperialism. At the close of WWII, the Allies maintained troops in both Germany and Japan (a land not their own) as those countries, freed from the tyranny that reigned over their nation, found a new way to govern themselves.

Yes, well, how was that not de facto imperialism? If they were able to govern themselves, why occupy them?

(In case you're wondering, I do not consider World War II to be the "Good War" as so many others seem to think. There is no such thing as a "good war" in my book.)

Quote by: Apeman81 Your use of the term “occupying” is sophistry. While it can be said that the US has placed Iraq “under the control of a foreign military”, is has relinquished control of the government to one it allowed the Iraqi people to create at the ballot box, and is working daily to give more and more military control over as it becomes able to. These are not the actions of a government trying to “control” another nation.

Again, if Iraqis can fend for themselves, why bother to continue occupying their land? (I won't even bring up my skepticism that the US forces really let the Iraqi people vote for who they wanted.)

Quote by: Apeman81 Quote by: Autolykos It seems to be an open question as to whether such a mission actually exists and whether those "fellows" are indeed "fighting" to achieve such a "goal". Anyone can question anything. That questioning in no way alters what is actually taking place, but it does evidence the perception of the questioner.

Thanks for the non-response. Please try again or go home empty-handed. :rolleyes:

Quote by: Apeman81 Quote by: Autolykos In other words, your mind is closed to alternative possibilities and thus you do not want to face them. :rolleyes: I was unaware that to disagree with the opinion of another occurs as the result of a closed mind. I was under the, apparently spurious, impression that one could weigh the alternatives and come to a decision having viewed and considered all the evidence. Silly me.

Spare me your sarcasm. My point was that you do not seem to have considered all of the evidence. Do I need to be any clearer?

- Rob