[Troll]

34 children killed in a bombing aimed at passing US military vehicles
3 adults killed in same bomb
2 Iraqi policemen and;
1 US soldier killed in the Abu Ghraib district of Baghdad by a car bomb that also left dozens injured;
1 US soldier killed by a rocket fired at a US base near Baghdad;
1 senior policeman shot dead in Mosul;
4 people killed in a car bombing in Talafar;
3 civilians killed in a US air strike on Falluja overnight.

That's 49 people killed in a single day! This is absolutely ridiculous. You can't have elections in this atmosphere. But more importantly, wtf is the US Army's problem? Why can't the strongest army in the world bring law and order to a Third World country that is only the size of California and has fewer inhabitants?

[dcolton]

Originally posted by Troll:
34 children killed in a bombing aimed at passing US military vehicles
3 adults killed in same bomb
2 Iraqi policemen and;
1 US soldier killed in the Abu Ghraib district of Baghdad by a car bomb that also left dozens injured;
1 US soldier killed by a rocket fired at a US base near Baghdad;
1 senior policeman shot dead in Mosul;
4 people killed in a car bombing in Talafar;
3 civilians killed in a US air strike on Falluja overnight.

That's 49 people killed in a single day! This is absolutely ridiculous. You can't have elections in this atmosphere.

Its a farking war. What do you expect, Troll? Really?
What is it that you want. I am sure ou expressed your ideals b4, but please refresh my memory.

But more importantly, wtf is the US Army's problem? Why can't the strongest army in the world bring law and order to a Third World country that is only the size of California and has fewer inhabitants?

What is the US's problem? Men like John Kerry, KarlG, John Edwards, and the rest of the liberal's who think the election of one man is worth the lives of American soldiers and innocent civilians. We are having problems because people like you have a near heart attack everytime a suspiciously innocent iraqi is killed...and ususally by their own people. We are having a difficult time because these killer muslims are hiding in mosques, among children, and behind women. We are having problems because we are fighting a people that love blood, violence and murder. Who take pleasure in death in the name of allah. We are having problems because all of these 'innocent' Iraqi's are dancing in the streets, celebrating death...but we can't eliminate them without people like you whining.

Do you think it will get better with Kerry? Do you think his election will stop predisposed killers from killing? WTF do you want. Off a solution or quit crying!

[spacefreak]

Originally posted by Troll:
That's 49 people killed in a single day!

Why the exclamation point? Are you that excited?

In other news... 113 people get killed each day in the US by mishaps caused by excessive alcohol use.

[Logic]

<right-wingers pre-war> why are the Iraqi forces in civilian areas!?



<right-wingers "post"-war> why are they attacking in civilian areas??


What's the word I'm looking for?

[bamburg dunes]

Talking of which, something very odd happened to me while browsing Sky news the other day. They had a headline saying 130 US soldiers killed in an attack. Then I go back to the page later after trying to find out more about this from other news agencies, like Reuters, BBC, etc. Nothing. When I go back to Sky, it now gives a whole new date as to this event, April.

Now, I distinctly remember reading this just a few days ago, now they've changed the page date!

What's going on? I can't reme,ber any such massive losses in April. Anyone shed some light on this? Anybody else read Sky news the other day and saw this?

Here's the page as it stands now, it definitely said September 28th when I first read it, now look at the date.

http://www.sky.com/skynews/article/0...130577,00.html

[Troll]

Originally posted by dcolton:
Its a farking war. What do you expect, Troll? Really?
What is it that you want.

It's a war? What kind of war is it? According to George Bush, major combat has ended, sovereignty has been transferred and the US Army are there by invitation of the Interim Iraqi Government. If it *is* a "farking war" why doesn't Bush fight it properly? That's the question I'd pose to Bush tonight if I were Kerry.

My problem is precisely what I said it was. That the most powerful nation on earth is failing to bring basic security to a backward little country that they threw into chaos by invading. It's evident to me that you're having problems and frankly I don't care whether it is their religion or the shape of their nostril that is the problem. Iraqi security is going backwards and Iraqi security is YOUR responsibility. Insurgents control more and more territory, they kill more and more people.

Frankly I don't buy the excuse that you can't stop it. It's a small country. You have more money and more guns than anyone on the planet. If you wanted to, you could have Iraq crawling with soldiers. Iraq is not exactly a tough nut to crack. If the US Army can't handle this, then the American Century is doomed. No, I think they are capable of handling this but either they have enough soldiers there and they aren't applying them well enough (rumours are that they spend most of their time sitting in the Green Zone since April) or they don't have enough soldiers there.

That's my solution. Get the farking Army to start doing its job. The Army is there to die bringing security to Iraqis and securing American interests even if American deaths look bad for Bush. At the moment the Army is failing on both fronts. If there aren't enough soldiers there, then draft some of the lazy arses that are posting on this forum and send them to man checkpoints and guard events like the one where the bomb exploded. If there are enough soldiers there, then make them do their jobs. I bet if this were happening in California, far more resources would be expended to get the problem under control. Oh, and spend some of the $18Bn that Congress appropriated for Iraqi restructuring!

[dcolton]

Originally posted by Troll:
It's a war? What kind of war is it? According to George Bush, major combat has ended, sovereignty has been transferred and the US Army are there by invitation of the Interim Iraqi Government. If it *is* a "farking war" why doesn't Bush fight it properly? That's the question I'd pose to Bush tonight if I were Kerry.

My problem is precisely what I said it was. That the most powerful nation on earth is failing to bring basic security to a backward little country that they threw into chaos by invading. It's evident to me that you're having problems and frankly I don't care whether it is their religion or the shape of their nostril that is the problem. Iraqi security is going backwards and Iraqi security is YOUR responsibility. Insurgents control more and more territory, they kill more and more people.

Frankly I don't buy the excuse that you can't stop it. It's a small country. You have more money and more guns than anyone on the planet. If you wanted to, you could have Iraq crawling with soldiers. Iraq is not exactly a tough nut to crack. If the US Army can't handle this, then the American Century is doomed. No, I think they are capable of handling this but either they have enough soldiers there and they aren't applying them well enough (rumours are that they spend most of their time sitting in the Green Zone since April) or they don't have enough soldiers there.

That's my solution. Get the farking Army to start doing its job. The Army is there to die bringing security to Iraqis and securing American interests even if American deaths look bad for Bush. At the moment the Army is failing on both fronts. If there aren't enough soldiers there, then draft some of the lazy arses that are posting on this forum and send them to man checkpoints and guard events like the one where the bomb exploded. If there are enough soldiers there, then make them do their jobs. I bet if this were happening in California, far more resources would be expended to get the problem under control. Oh, and spend some of the $18Bn that Congress appropriated for Iraqi restructuring!

Wow! Thank you. I didn't expect such a response. And...we agree. But, I think that the military is handcuffed by domestic politics, international politics, and the interim Iraqi government. This is a farking war, and I have been saying all along that we need to step it up...just like you are saying. But, what if more civilians die when we step it up. Are ou going to complain or are you going to stick to your guns?

edit: troll has now been added to my respect list.

[Troll]

Originally posted by spacefreak:
Why the exclamation point? Are you that excited?

In other news... 113 people get killed each day in the US by mishaps caused by excessive alcohol use.

113 out of 250 million. So, if 14 Iraqis died yesterday from alcohol mishaps, the problem would be the same. I don't have the figures for alcohol mishaps in Iraq.

But perhaps you can tell me how many people were blown apart by bombs in America yesterday. The equivalent of what happened in Iraq today would be 390 people killed in the US today by bombs.

[Troll]

Originally posted by dcolton:
This is a farking war, and I have been saying all along that we need to step it up...just like you are saying. But, what if more civilians die when we step it up. Are ou going to complain or are you going to stick to your guns?

The US has to provide security within the realm of all of the contraints that are placed on them. Politics is one of those contraints. Not killing civilians is another on those constraints. Respecting the decision to hand over sovereignty early is another. Within all of those contraints the US has to provide security.

There should be curfews and checkpoints on every corner. US soldiers should be out there doing their jobs, walking the streets at all hours of the day not sitting in the Green Zone watching DVD's. The US should be spending reconstruction money, getting unemployment down and US soldiers should be guarding Police Stations and other obvious targets in Iraq. Fighting this kind of war on terror doesn't mean nuking and paving Falluja for the same reason that in your domestic War on Terror, you wouldn't ever consider nuking and paving Santa Monica. The fact that this struggle is taking place in civilian areas is part of the battle conditions. You need to fight within those conditions. Doing that isn't impossible. Israel manages without killing Israelis. The UK managed in Northern Ireland. Spain and France manage against ETA. The apartheid government managed in South Africa. The US government manages against Al Qaeda.

[Mithras]

Originally posted by spacefreak:
In other news... 113 people get killed each day in the US by mishaps caused by excessive alcohol use.

I don't think you want to go the route of trivialization.
Some 3000 people were killed by terrorism in the U.S. in 2001. Some 17,000 were killed by drunk driving. Does this mean that September 11 wasn't important?

Since September 11, 2001:
* 3,000 Americans were killed by terrorists
* 4,500 Americans were killed by drunk drivers who already had one DUI conviction.

Yet while we hunt terrorists across the globe, a guy with a DUI conviction is our President.

So in terms of human casualties, yes, our priorities are misguided. But we rather dislike the world caused by fear of random mass murder -- even more than we fear the world caused by fear of random death in ones and twos by drunk drivers. Perhaps that's illogical, but most other people feel similarly.

So if Iraqis have an outsized fear and dislike of being blown apart by car bombs, who are we to blame them?

[numbers are estimates from this source ]

[dcolton]

Originally posted by Troll:
The US has to provide security within the realm of all of the contraints that are placed on them. Politics is one of those contraints. Not killing civilians is another on those constraints. Respecting the decision to hand over sovereignty early is another. Within all of those contraints the US has to provide security.

There should be curfews and checkpoints on every corner. US soldiers should be out there doing their jobs, walking the streets at all hours of the day not sitting in the Green Zone watching DVD's. The US should be spending reconstruction money, getting unemployment down and US soldiers should be guarding Police Stations and other obvious targets in Iraq. Fighting this kind of war on terror doesn't mean nuking and paving Falluja for the same reason that in your domestic War on Terror, you wouldn't ever consider nuking and paving Santa Monica. The fact that this struggle is taking place in civilian areas is part of the battle conditions. You need to fight within those conditions. Doing that isn't impossible. Israel manages without killing Israelis. The UK managed in Northern Ireland. Spain and France manage against ETA. The apartheid government managed in South Africa. The US government manages against Al Qaeda.

and what shold the Iraqi's be doing?

[djohnson]

Originally posted by dcolton:
and what shold the Iraqi's be doing?

Not blowing each other up with bombs...

[tie]

I think the current situation in Iraq is a clear victory for freedom. After all, we have managed to get it mostly out of the news (because reporters are too scared to go there..). And that is the whole reason we invaded, right?

Why hasn't someone called Troll a terrorist supporter yet? Doesn't reporting bad news about Iraq support the terrorists? This forum seems to have fallen asleep.

But Troll, what about this argument?: The US Army can't bring security to Iraq because the US Army's presence itself feeds the insurgency. This is the motivation we continually give for trying to spread responsibility to the Iraqi police (who apparently use their salaries to support the insurgency).

At the moment, Bush is trying to lower standards as far as possible for what can be considered a victory. Basically Bush will be happy if violence stays at current levels, with only slight escalations, until the January elections. The January elections will be considered successful no matter what happens. Then the US will leave and there will either be civil war, or a dictator will take control by force. But hopefully a dictator who is outwardly friendly to America even as he secretly funds the Taliban/hosts Al Qaeda/sells nuclear weapons abroad.

[Logic]

Reports are in that the US just evacuated their soldiers and left the kids, who were victims in the attack, there to die...............

[dcolton]

Originally posted by Logic:
Reports are in that the US just evacuated their soldiers and left the kids, who were victims in the attack, there to die...............

oops, wrong forum...

Did you actually read the article? Your terrorist freedom fighters are guilty of this, not the US Army. When are you going to hold the other side responsible for their acts...they killed 35 childrend, 72 were injured while American soldiers were handing out candy. How horrific. These people are evil.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,134041,00.html

[eklipse]

Not sure if you were being facetious, but:

Originally posted by Troll:
...a backward little country...

Iraq was not a 'backward little country'.

...Iraq is not exactly a tough nut to crack...

Owing to Iraq's dangerous mix of cultures, tribes, religions and profitable natural resources, I would say that it is a particularly difficult nut to crack - which is yet another reason why the invasion was unwise.

[swrate]

Originally posted by spacefreak:
Why the exclamation point? Are you that excited?

In other news... 113 people get killed each day in the US by mishaps caused by excessive alcohol use.

!!!!!!!!!!!!!
you compare people dying because they drink too much booze with children being slaughtered with stealth fighters and tanks?????????????????

[smacintush]

Originally posted by swrate:
!!!!!!!!!!!!!
you compare people dying because they drink too much booze with children being slaughtered with stealth fighters and tanks?????????????????

I understand your outrage but you should try actually READING before posting.

[cold_reality]

Originally posted by spacefreak:
Why the exclamation point? Are you that excited?

In other news... 113 people get killed each day in the US by mishaps caused by excessive alcohol use.

You're dealing with a much bigger pool.

[cold_reality]

Originally posted by dcolton:


edit: troll has now been added to my respect list.

And what's that worth exactly?

[Logic]

Originally posted by cold_reality:
And what's that worth exactly?

About five posts without a personal attack.

[swrate]

Originally posted by smacintush:
I understand your outrage but you should try actually READING before posting.

......absolutely, sorry, my blood was boiling after reading another thread, I should keep away.
Deaths? Nearly half half, liver problems, and car crashes.
How many are victims of another through accidents? 1/3 of that number? less?

Why compare the bottle with the bomb? Does it not show right there how unhappy people are?

[Troll]

Originally posted by eklipse:
Not sure if you were being facetious, but:

Iraq was not a 'backward little country'.

Owing to Iraq's dangerous mix of cultures, tribes, religions and profitable natural resources, I would say that it is a particularly difficult nut to crack - which is yet another reason why the invasion was unwise.

I was being facetious of course although there is something to be said about Iraq being a lot easier to score a military victory in than North Korea or Iran or many others. If the US Army wants to be the PNAC's tool for ensuring the New American Century, then it needs to perform a lot better than it has in Iraq. Iraq was crippled by years of sanctions so its military was weak. At the same time, its societal structures were relatively strong. Its people hated their leader and were ripe for change. Iraqis weren't religious nuts (not as religiously nutty as many others at any rate). Making the neocon agenda stick in Iraq was a lot easier, IMHO, than making it stick in Iran or North Korea (the other two parts of the axis).

[Troll]

Originally posted by dcolton:
and what shold the Iraqi's be doing?

Working. Which is what they would be doing if some of the money set aside by Congress for reconstruction was actually being spent! Which is what they would be doing if it was safe enough for them to work and for foreign companies to invest. Without security (which is the US's responsibility), nothing else can be achieved.

[angaq0k]

Originally posted by spacefreak:
Why the exclamation point? Are you that excited?

In other news... 113 people get killed each day in the US by mishaps caused by excessive alcohol use.

Now there is a good use for your soldiers!


I vote spacefreak for his idea of using the army to fight alcohol abuse in the US!


Instead of chasing a chimera in Iraq...

[angaq0k]

Originally posted by dcolton:
Its a farking war. What do you expect, Troll? Really?
What is it that you want. I am sure ou expressed your ideals b4, but please refresh my memory.

You damn right!

Farking soldiers are paid to die anyway! Good for them!

It is just sad the farking Iraqi kids are not paid to die..

Aw shucks...

At least they die free...