At this rate in Iraq... - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Lypton Village > Free Your Mind > Free Your Mind Archive
Click Here to Login
 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 07-07-2003, 05:55 AM   #1
ONE
love, blood, life
 
melon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Toronto, Ontario
Posts: 11,782
Local Time: 12:30 PM
At this rate in Iraq...

We could have anywhere around 600 dead soldiers this year, with attacks seeming daily. I have to wonder how America will continue to respond to this, considering that a five-year occupation is expected?

Melon
__________________

melon is offline  
Old 07-07-2003, 06:36 AM   #2
Rock n' Roll Doggie
ALL ACCESS
 
speedracer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Posts: 7,604
Local Time: 01:30 PM
Not to make light of the situation, but for comparison's sake I think we were losing around 500 soldiers per month at the height of the Vietnam/Indochina war.
__________________

speedracer is offline  
Old 07-07-2003, 07:13 AM   #3
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 10,885
Local Time: 12:30 PM
Finally

This is what I have been saying in here, since before the war. From Meet the Press on SUnday:

[Q]MS. MITCHELL: Let me show you the cover of Time magazine this morning which has the caption: “Peace Is Hell.” Senator Levin, we are at that stage where we have so many people dying every day, Iraqis now, these police recruits, as well as our own soldiers. Should we be sending more troops andwas, in fact, the Army chief of staff, General Shinseki, correct when he first said that there was a need for several hundred thousand troops there, a comment that was greatly criticized within the Pentagon?
SEN. LEVIN: I think he was not only correct but I think he was being very honest. He should not have been criticized and chastised for making an honest statement as a professional soldier and we are going to be there for a long period of time with a significant number of troops and the president finally acknowledged that this week. It took much too long to acknowledge that in my judgment.
What we have not done yet is to ask, suggest, to NATO, to request NATO to authorize member states to use force and to support our efforts in Iraq. We have not done that and it is an absolute mystery to me, I must tell you, Andrea, as to why we have not asked NATO to do that because it could result in a number of countries coming in, including Germany and possibly France, and those troops could be used to relieve our troops.
Our troops are stretched very, very thin. There is great stress on those troops now, and we should ask other countries to support our effort in Iraq. The fact that they didn’t go in with us is no longer relevant, it seems to me, if it ever was. What is important to us is that we end this feud that we have going with Germany and France and actually seek the support not only within NATO but also of the United Nations, because if the United Nations supports this effort and urges member nations to support with troops, it is then much more likely we’ll get the Indians to come in, the Egyptians to come in, and it’s extremely important that we have this international support.
The president continues, it seems to me, to minimize the importance of getting NATO and the U.N.-and I emphasize that because I know there’s a number of other countries that have individually said it’ll send a few thousand troops. I’m talking about NATO and the U.N. because of the difference it could make in terms of relieving some of our forces from the duties that we now have. And we’re a target there also because the United States is the one that got rid of Saddam. It is the Ba’athist remnants, the extremists in the Ba’athist Party that are attacking because we are the ones that ended their privileged position in Iraq. So we should try to get other U.N. and NATO countries, as NATO and U.N., to...
MS. MITCHELL: Well, senators...
SEN. LEVIN: ...come in there with us to reduce our being the target.
[/Q]
Dreadsox is offline  
Old 07-07-2003, 12:27 PM   #4
Blue Crack Addict
 
anitram's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: NY
Posts: 17,933
Local Time: 01:30 PM
I think you DO need other countries to step in and help out.

However, if the feeling in a particular country is very anti-American, or at least anti-war, I am not sure how supportive the citizens of that country would be to sending their children to die for a cause they did not / do not support. What I mean to say is that I don't know how feasible it will be for those governments to ship in troops, young men there die, and the feeling at home is not that tolerant.

It's just a thought.
anitram is online now  
Old 07-07-2003, 12:30 PM   #5
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 10,885
Local Time: 12:30 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by anitram
I think you DO need other countries to step in and help out.

However, if the feeling in a particular country is very anti-American, or at least anti-war, I am not sure how supportive the citizens of that country would be to sending their children to die for a cause they did not / do not support. What I mean to say is that I don't know how feasible it will be for those governments to ship in troops, young men there die, and the feeling at home is not that tolerant.

It's just a thought.
Very good points.

They are expecting a multinational force from Poland and more troops from England by September. 30,000 or so I believe. Still it is not the same as having the backing of the UN and Arabs.
Dreadsox is offline  
Old 07-07-2003, 01:21 PM   #6
Refugee
 
Red Ships of Scalla-Festa's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: your skull
Posts: 2,311
Local Time: 11:30 AM
oh, so when the going gets tough THEN we need their help? im sorry, but its stupid logic.

and im not making light of the american casualties.
Red Ships of Scalla-Festa is offline  
Old 07-07-2003, 01:24 PM   #7
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 10,885
Local Time: 12:30 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by Red Ships of Scalla-Festa
oh, so when the going gets tough THEN we need their help? im sorry, but its stupid logic.
Not my argument. I argued that we needed the international community before the war. THe Senator is arguing it a little late.
Dreadsox is offline  
Old 07-07-2003, 01:25 PM   #8
Rock n' Roll Doggie
ALL ACCESS
 
sulawesigirl4's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Virginia
Posts: 7,416
Local Time: 12:30 PM
It is a little late. We should have thought of that before we side-stepped the UN and plowed ahead with war plans. But oh well.
__________________
"I can't change the world, but I can change the world in me." - Bono

sulawesigirl4 is offline  
Old 07-07-2003, 01:28 PM   #9
Blue Crack Addict
 
anitram's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: NY
Posts: 17,933
Local Time: 01:30 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by Dreadsox
They are expecting a multinational force from Poland and more troops from England by September. 30,000 or so I believe. Still it is not the same as having the backing of the UN and Arabs.
Yes, but Poland and England were on board this so-called coalition in the first place.
anitram is online now  
Old 07-07-2003, 02:10 PM   #10
Blue Crack Addict
 
verte76's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: hoping for changes
Posts: 23,331
Local Time: 05:30 PM
That's why it was a mistake to go in without the UN. Poland and the U.K were already there. It'd be better if Arabs and other people were in there. Perhaps if they'd used an argument like "then we can pull our troops out of Saudi Arabia and cut down on terrorism risks substantially" or whatever the countries that opposed the war might not have, particularly not the Arabic countries. The diplomatic screw-ups were lethal.
verte76 is offline  
Old 07-07-2003, 03:03 PM   #11
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 05:30 PM
First, I don't think it was a mistake at all to disarm Saddam. Lets not forget the reasons why US troops are in Iraq in the first place. Secondly, it would not matter how multi-ethnic the occupation force would be, your going to have violence and unrest. Patrolling and policing in Iraq no matter what was done, is never going to be like policing Orlando Florida. Many people did not want to go all the way to Baghdad back in the 1991 war because policing Iraq would be considered 10 times worse than Policing the former Yugoslavia. The chance for large scale violence and unrest and general civil war was high. But Luckily, this has actually not occured. What we are seeing now, is the last of Saddams supporters who will not have any place in a new Iraq.

The next thing is that based on the causalty numbers since May 1, when Bush declared an end to major combat operations, Melon's number of 600 dead by the end of the year is way off the mark. So far, 30 US solders have been killed by hostile fire since May 1. Thats 30 killed by Hostile fire in 68 days. Thats .44 per day. There are 175 days left in the year. If the current rate of attacks remains the same for the rest of the year, the number of US soldiers killed by hostile fire since the end of Major Combat operations ended on May 1, at the end of this year, would be 107.

I believe though that US forces as time passes will be able to hunt down many of the remaining soldiers and Baath party members who are conducting the killings. They will never be able to catch them all, but as the new year begins, hopefully more responsibility can be passed off to the Iraqi Police.

Another thing we need to look at is where the attacks are taking place. 90% of the attacks on coalition forces are taking places in the area from around Baghdad up to Tikrit. This is a rather small area when one looks at all of Iraq. People here forget that the Kurdish area's and Shia area's of Iraq have been rather peaceful comparitively.

Although many will say the USA acted without UN support during the war, ever since May 22 and resolution 1483, the current operation has indisputably been a UN operation. There are American, British, Australian and Polish troops currently on the ground in Iraq. Most UN operations do not have more than that number of different nations involved on the ground at any one time. In addition, German and French troops would not be any better at dealing with the problems in Tikrit and Baghdad. Some would say Egyptian troops might be, but I don't think so. The problem is actually not the general populations opposition to foreign troops from Europe but the remnants of Saddams regime that are intent on fighting to the end and those from other countries, perhaps with Al Quada connections that want to try and spoil the situation for the international community in Iraq. Despite what Egyptian troops may have in common with Iraqi civilians, this will not help when faced with former members of Saddams regime that are bent on killing anyone that has taken their power.

What is really needed is the development of the Iraqi police force and military in addition to the government. Once these things happen, US troop presence in certain area's can be reduced. I think that as conditions improve in the Baghdad, Tikrit area, and US forces gain more intelligence on those conducting the attacks and more arrests are made, the number of attacks each month will start to decrease.

The Baghdad/Tikrit area is Saddams base of power and its going to take some time to completely secure that area to the point that US troop levels can be reduced there. The real nightmare many planners feared was general civil war on a level greater than Yugoslavia or Lebanon, with thousands of people being killed every month. That has not even remotely happened on any level, but was always a possibility if a coalition went in to unseat Saddam.

I'm hoping and I think that the number of attacks on US troops in the Baghdad/Tikrit area will start to decrease over the next couple of months. But in my opinion, there was no silver bullet plan that would have prevented all the attacks we have seen over the past 2 months. Reducing these attacks is going to take some time.
STING2 is offline  
Old 07-07-2003, 03:05 PM   #12
The Fly
 
Diogenes's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Toronto, Canada
Posts: 83
Local Time: 12:30 PM
I think the whole thing was BS. from the begining.

They should not have dismissed the UN, THIS is why.
Diogenes is offline  
Old 07-07-2003, 11:54 PM   #13
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 10,885
Local Time: 12:30 PM
[Q]Hostile fire deaths in Iraq could rise, experts warn
By GREG WRIGHT
WASHINGTON — The death toll among American and British troops in Iraq likely will rise in weeks ahead as resentment against the U.S.-led occupation grows, Middle East and military experts said Monday. [/Q]

To use May 1 as the date to judge this by is silly. Use the last month. Want to bet that there were many many less deaths in the month of May?

The pace is picking up. We are viewed as an occupying army and if this administration had received legitimacy from the UN Security Council, and support from the Arab League, there would be more acceptance of the forces that remain. There would be less deaths in my opinion.

Peace



http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/i...l-rising_x.htm
Dreadsox is offline  
Old 07-08-2003, 02:21 AM   #14
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 05:30 PM
Dreadsox,


"The pace is picking up. We are viewed as an occupying army and if this administration had received legitimacy from the UN Security Council, and support from the Arab League, there would be more acceptance of the forces that remain. There would be less deaths in my opinion."

If "we" are viewed as an occupying army by the general population, why have 90% of the attacks taken place in the area of Baghdad/Tikrit?

Are the attacks being conducted the work of civilians and former regular army personal, or more professional members of the Republican Guard and Baath Party?

How many people in Iraq do you think actually know the details and arguements about whether the Coalition did or did not recieve the UNs blessing for what it is currently doing in Iraq?

How many Baath Party Members, Special Republican Guard, and other Saddam loyalist do you think would act differently because of UN Security Council Support or Arab League support?

If the coalition had recieved all the support and legitamcy you believe it did not recieve, how many deaths do you think the coalition would have suffered since May 1 or June 1?
STING2 is offline  
Old 07-08-2003, 04:18 AM   #15
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 05:30 PM
"To use May 1 as the date to judge this by is silly. Use the last month. Want to bet that there were many many less deaths in the month of May?"

The USA has lost 30 soldiers in Iraq to hostile fire since May 1. Here is the breakdown by month.

May (8)

June (16)

July (4)

There were 2 more that I could not find the month for.

If we take the last full month, June, the rate of loss is about .55, slightly higher than the rate from May 1 to the present which is .44 per day. If June is was the rate until the end of the year, by year end there would be 129 US soldiers killed by hostile fire then, compared to the 107 total with the .44 rate.

I'm hoping and think that over the next couple of months, this rate of loss will be reduced as US forces track down suspects, gain more intelligence, and are able to hand over more Police duty's to the Iraqi Police.

Based on the losses so far, where they have occured, and how they have occured, this does not at all look like some popular revolt against coalition forces. 90% of the attacks have taken place in the Baghdad/Tikrit area which is where most of Saddam's most loyal followers are from. Most of the attacks have also seem to have been done by individuals more professional than a civilian or former regular army soldier.
STING2 is offline  
Old 07-08-2003, 01:00 PM   #16
Blue Crack Addict
 
verte76's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: hoping for changes
Posts: 23,331
Local Time: 05:30 PM
I hope this happens Sting. I just hate it that our troops are still getting killed and the Iraqi people are still having to put up with this chaos.
verte76 is offline  
Old 07-08-2003, 02:43 PM   #17
Refugee
 
Red Ships of Scalla-Festa's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: your skull
Posts: 2,311
Local Time: 11:30 AM
the troops are paying for the arrogance, ignorance, green and stupidity of the bush administration.

its a family war. the true intentions are finally being seen by the american public.
Red Ships of Scalla-Festa is offline  
Old 07-08-2003, 03:00 PM   #18
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Lilly's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: back and to the left
Posts: 8,523
Local Time: 11:30 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by STING2
First, I don't think it was a mistake at all to disarm Saddam. Lets not forget the reasons why US troops are in Iraq in the first place.


Another thing we need to look at is where the attacks are taking place. 90% of the attacks on coalition forces are taking places in the area from around Baghdad up to Tikrit. This is a rather small area when one looks at all of Iraq. People here forget that the Kurdish area's and Shia area's of Iraq have been rather peaceful comparitively.


1. people aren't saying that they didn't want saddam disarmed. it's not like "hi, i'm not for this war because i want a completely crazy guy to have weapons that could kill me at any second!" it's more like "hi, i'm not for this war because the US shoved it on everyone and when its own allies said 'wait, wait, wait' the US broke most allegiances as well as undermined the UNITED NATIONS to go to war with iraq and that's the lamest shit that was ever performed to get into a war."


2. just because the place where the attacks are taking place are small doesn't mean many many people won't die. tikrit is SO dangerous, especially right now, and clearly there will be more american deaths. how do we stop it? well it'd be nice to be able to fall back on our allies at this point, but we let them go to get into a forced war.


if the war was as justifiable as rumsfeld and bush jr want us to think, why couldn't it have waited till our allies and the UN were ready to go?


it can't be the impending 2004 election, right?
Lilly is offline  
Old 07-08-2003, 04:43 PM   #19
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 05:30 PM
Lilly,

"it's more like "hi, i'm not for this war because the US shoved it on everyone and when its own allies said 'wait, wait, wait' the US broke most allegiances as well as undermined the UNITED NATIONS to go to war with iraq and that's the lamest shit that was ever performed to get into a war.""

Thats not what happened. If anything the opposite happened and the USA and international community waited to long.

At the end of the Gulf War, Saddam signed a ceacefire agreement that required him to give up all his WMD. UN resolutions, 678, 687, and more recently 1441, all authorized the use of force if Iraq failed to cooperate in disarming itself. The USA and other member states followed the UN course and allowed nearly 12 years to past before decisive action was taken to disarm Iraq. If Saddam had cooperated 100% from the begining, Iraq could have been disarmed by 1992. Saddam lied and cheated and fooled the international community time and again. To see how long this type of disarmament takes when the countries agree to do what they say, just look at Ukraine, Kazakstan and South Africa. Disarmament in those countries was accomplished in a matter of months.

The international community approved the military action to disarm Iraq through resolutions 678,687, and in the fall of 2002, 1441. Then in May of 2003, resolution 1483 recognized the USA, UK and Australia as the Authority in Iraq. If operation Iraqi Freedom was illegal, the UN would be calling for the removal of US, UK and Australian troops rather than recognizing them as the Authority.


". just because the place where the attacks are taking place are small doesn't mean many many people won't die. tikrit is SO dangerous, especially right now, and clearly there will be more american deaths. how do we stop it? well it'd be nice to be able to fall back on our allies at this point, but we let them go to get into a forced war."

Don't forget there are British, Australian and Polish troops on the ground. Just because the French and Germans are not there, does not mean it is not an international operation. Over 50 countries supported the operation and I think most others want to see Iraq rebuilt and stabilized after 24 years of Saddam.

"if the war was as justifiable as rumsfeld and bush jr want us to think, why couldn't it have waited till our allies and the UN were ready to go?"

The coalition has waited for 12 years!!!!! The UN approved the use of force despite what vocal Lawyers, the French, German and Russians say. The French, German, And Russians unfortunately would never have gone. They wanted to see Saddam remain in power.
STING2 is offline  
Old 07-08-2003, 04:47 PM   #20
Rock n' Roll Doggie
ALL ACCESS
 
sulawesigirl4's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Virginia
Posts: 7,416
Local Time: 12:30 PM
so where are those dang WMDs? Remember the ones that we just could not wait for Hans Blix to find? The ones that Rummy is now telling us to "be patient" in finding? I gotta say, the irony is amusing.
__________________

__________________
"I can't change the world, but I can change the world in me." - Bono

sulawesigirl4 is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 12:30 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com
×