Meanwhile, back in the war.....

[RickSp]

.............things keep getting worse.

Iraq bombings kill 3 U.S. soldiers

American jets attack bridges near Syria to prevent insurgents from moving fighters, munitions toward Baghdad

Two soldiers from Task Force Baghdad were killed and two others were wounded when their vehicle struck a roadside bomb today, the command said in a statement. Another soldier from the Army's Task Force Freedom was killed by a bomb Monday in the northern city of Tal Afar, the U.S. military said. Meanwhile, U.S. Marine jets attacked two bridges across the Euphrates River near the Syrian border to prevent insurgents from moving foreign fighters and munitions toward Baghdad and other cities, the U.S. command said. Elsewhere, Iraqi officials said al-Qaida-linked foreign fighters had taken control of large areas of a strategic city on the Syrian border after weeks of fighting between an Iraqi tribe that supports the insurgents and one that opposes them. The officials, speaking on condition of anonymity for fear of reprisal, said much of Qaim, 200 miles west of Baghdad, had been abandoned. U.S. Marines operate around Qaim but have complained privately that they do not have enough American or Iraqi forces to secure the area properly. The attacks in the Hit area began Sunday when two suicide car bombs exploded at security barricades on the northwest side of town, a Marine statement said. A car bomb also exploded on the Hit bridge across the Euphrates River, rendering it impassable, the Marines said. The Marine statement said three insurgents and one Iraqi soldier died in the attacks. The government in Baghdad said eight civilians also died. In Doha, Qatar, the U.S. Central Command said U.S. jets launched airstrikes Sunday on insurgent positions near Balad, 50 miles north of Baghdad, dropping two 500-pound bombs. The statement also said an Air Force Predator aircraft fired two Hellfire missiles against a mortar firing position near Balad. On Monday, gunmen seized a son of the governor of insurgent-infested Anbar province, Mamoun Sami Rashid al-Alwani, officials said on condition of anonymity for fear of insurgent reprisal. The abduction occurred in the provincial capital of Ramadi, west of Baghdad. U.S. and Iraqi officials had hoped the new constitution, which goes to the voters in an Oct. 15 referendum, would help pacify the insurgency by luring Sunni Arabs away from it. However, Sunni negotiators rejected the constitution and vowed to defeat it in the referendum. The bitter, protracted negotiations appeared to have raised tensions among Iraq's ethnic and religious communities. About 1,500 people, mostly Sunnis, rallied Monday near the Sunni city of Ramadi to protest the draft charter.

This region has been "cleared" by US and Iraqi forces several times yet the insurgents get coming back stronger. Isn't it about time that we get out before we are thrown out? (Sure to drive the macho War Party types crazy, no doubt.)

[SoccerfreakAB2]

I never really had a complete opinion on the war, yet I think we are so deep into Iraq's new government, we should at least make sure we aren't leaving the place in shambles. I think we need to look at what would happen in case we leave and decide from there when the right time to do so is.

[RickSp]

Right now Bush and his cabal have no exit strategy except to keep doing what they are doing, which at this point is losing. One US general was reprimanded for even suggesting an exit strategy. Bush's plan is similar to Nixon's approach in Vietnam which gained nothing except the deaths of 20,000 more US troops and ended in a NorthVietnamese victory.

To claim that a brutal occupation by an infidel army will bring peace is simply delusional. The longer we stay, the more permrnant bases we build, the less stable the country will become. We need to plan an exit strategy now. The longer we stay they worse the outcome will be.

[SoccerfreakAB2]

Quote by: RickSp Right now Bush and his cabal have no exit strategy except to keep doing what they are doing, which at this point is losing. One US general was reprimanded for even suggesting an exit strategy. Bush's plan is similar to Nixon's approach in Vietnam which gained nothing except the deaths of 20,000 more US troops and ended in a NorthVietnamese victory. To claim that a brutal occupation by an infidel army will bring peace is simply delusional. The longer we stay, the more permrnant bases we build, the less stable the country will become. We need to plan an exit strategy now. The longer we stay they worse the outcome will be.

Not if democracy can come to Iraq. The effects of such an outcome would be tremendous across the Middle East. I agree we need to think of an exit strategy right now. That doesn't mean leave yet though. Nothing wrong with finding the best solution until that time.

[bishop]

we thought we could get democracy in vietnam too, didn't we? look how good that worked out.

waiting for the iraqis to get their act together is not a strategy, and it isn't in our country's best interests.

[Dieval]

planting the seeds of democracy in the middle east is in the worlds best interest...

[PatrickHenry]

Quote by: Dieval planting the seeds of democracy in the middle east is in the worlds best interest...

Gee, you make it seem so pastoral. The US isn't killing people and blowing things up, it's planting seeds...!

Sowing dragon's teeth is more like it.

[bishop]

Quote by: Dieval planting the seeds of democracy in the middle east is in the worlds best interest...

just like those seeds we planted in vietnam..

the only thing those seeds are growing are terrorists buddy.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/worldlates...258346,00.html

[rmnunez]

Rick, how does the item posted at #1 show things are "getting worse", two US soldiers were killed, its about the average toll that's held for a couple of years now. There are usually a couple of fatalities every day from these IEDs and the more courageous of the "martyrs". Things will be getting worse when the average fatality toll climbs, when it remains constant it might indicate stability even.

[bishop]

but it isn't remaining constant. the fatalities suffered over the past couple months are higher than average. taking this article in a more intelligent context, it certainly does show things getting worse.

http://icasualties.org/oif/

the casualty rate IS climbing professor.

[ibm]

planting the seeds? lmfao!

wouldn't saudi or kuwait, our friends' places, be an easier and more economical venue to start "planting the seeds"?

meanwhile, the opium seeds in afghan have sure grown well...

[Dieval]

Quote by: bishop just like those seeds we planted in vietnam.. the only thing those seeds are growing are terrorists buddy. http://www.guardian.co.uk/worldlates...258346,00.html

Bringing up an article that has Kofi talking about Iraq is awfully funny...he's just upset he's not getting his kick backs from Saddam any more...hahaha

[Dieval]

Quote by: PatrickHenry Gee, you make it seem so pastoral. The US isn't killing people and blowing things up, it's planting seeds...! Sowing dragon's teeth is more like it.

I'm glad that you're so concerned about the well being of the terrorists that are attacking our troops as well as the civilians in Iraq...

Quote by: bishop the casualty rate IS climbing professor.

The chart shows the casualty rate changes every month...saying it's rising is not quite accurate..

And please, don't read into my response that I don't care about the troops or that the deaths of our troops is somehow a good thing..

[bishop]

Quote by: Dieval Bringing up an article that has Kofi talking about Iraq is awfully funny...he's just upset he's not getting his kick backs from Saddam any more...hahaha

the good ol' tongue in cheek response.. interesting how you'll cozy up to the flies of one man, while shunning the flies of another.

anyway.. i guess it doesn't matter that annan's statement happens to be correct, eh? your "sowing the seeds" statement was weak dieval. iraq's all screwed up because of bush, and there is no end in sight. tasty shit pie.

[RickSp]

Here we have it. The two fall back war monger positions:

1. We are planting the seeds of democracy, as if democracy can be delivered by air strike, as if democracy will flower from a brutal occupation by an infidel army. These folks are obviously either entirely disconnected from what is happening in Iraq or do not have the first clue of what the word "democracy" means. Both seem likely to me.

2. Once again the war mongers dismiss the deaths of Americans and Iraqis. Disgusting but predictable. Apparently these folks haven't figured out that the reason the insurgency keeps growing stronger is because the US continues to occupy Iraq. Pogo was right and the war mongers haven't a clue.

[northtexan]

Quote by: SoccerfreakAB2 Not if democracy can come to Iraq. The effects of such an outcome would be tremendous across the Middle East. I agree we need to think of an exit strategy right now. That doesn't mean leave yet though. Nothing wrong with finding the best solution until that time.

Saddam Hussein had Iraq on a downward course, both while he was our good buddy and after, but neither Iraq nor he were threats to us. Then we went in, overthrew him, and made things worse, and it is a major threat to us. The longer we stay, the worse, and more threatening, we make it. There is no good outcome to expect, other than hope that the civil war will be brief and quickly establish a Kurdish state in the north and a theocratic Shia state, allied with Iran, in the south. Then, if Turkey doesn't invade, there might be relative peace as the genocide of the Sunni population went forward. An even-better outcome would be for the Kurds and Shia to agree to continue to share oil revenues with the Sunni center, so buy off an insurgency that would otherwise have to be brutally suppressed -- but don't get too optimistic about that. Other prospects include a general regional war that will pull in nuclear-armed countries that might use their nukes (the U.S., India, Pakistan, and Israel come to mind -- and maybe Iran in a few years). Pretty dismal prospects, yes -- but all far more likely than a blossoming, Iraq-wide democracy. On the other hand, if the U.S. stays, the possibilities are worse -- at the very least, more terrorist attacks on U.S. troops, U.S. interests throughout the world, and likely the U.S. itself. We need to face the truth: we broke it and we can't fix it.

[northtexan]

Quote by: Dieval Bringing up an article that has Kofi talking about Iraq is awfully funny...he's just upset he's not getting his kick backs from Saddam any more...hahaha

No, instead Halliburton and others are getting billions from corruption on a scale that makes Saddam look like a choir boy and Oil for Food like the corner grocery.

[SoccerfreakAB2]

Quote by: bishop we thought we could get democracy in vietnam too, didn't we? look how good that worked out. waiting for the iraqis to get their act together is not a strategy, and it isn't in our country's best interests.

Vietnam was not much of an important as Iraq. A democracy in Iraq would cause nearly every Arabic country to start wondering if they could have one too.

[SoccerfreakAB2]

Quote by: northtexan Saddam Hussein had Iraq on a downward course, both while he was our good buddy and after, but neither Iraq nor he were threats to us. Then we went in, overthrew him, and made things worse, and it is a major threat to us. The longer we stay, the worse, and more threatening, we make it. There is no good outcome to expect, other than hope that the civil war will be brief and quickly establish a Kurdish state in the north and a theocratic Shia state, allied with Iran, in the south. Then, if Turkey doesn't invade, there might be relative peace as the genocide of the Sunni population went forward. An even-better outcome would be for the Kurds and Shia to agree to continue to share oil revenues with the Sunni center, so buy off an insurgency that would otherwise have to be brutally suppressed -- but don't get too optimistic about that. Other prospects include a general regional war that will pull in nuclear-armed countries that might use their nukes (the U.S., India, Pakistan, and Israel come to mind -- and maybe Iran in a few years). Pretty dismal prospects, yes -- but all far more likely than a blossoming, Iraq-wide democracy. On the other hand, if the U.S. stays, the possibilities are worse -- at the very least, more terrorist attacks on U.S. troops, U.S. interests throughout the world, and likely the U.S. itself. We need to face the truth: we broke it and we can't fix it.

I also agree with this reasoning a lot. I am somewhat split on the issue altogether. But what infuriates me is the fact that the citizens are not allowed to leave the country. It is different if they can flee from the country if Saddam is a dictator, but he put restrictions on that ability to leave, and I think that was completely wrong and urgently needed to change.

[Dieval]

Quote by: bishop your "sowing the seeds" statement was weak dieval.

You say that as if Democracy in Iraq is a bad thing...don't want another free democratic country in the world, eh?