At this rate in Iraq...

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.

melon

ONE love, blood, life
Joined
Oct 2, 2000
Messages
11,790
Location
Ásgarðr
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
 
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.
 
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]
 
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 said:
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.
 
Red Ships of Scalla-Festa said:
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.
 
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. :|
 
Dreadsox said:
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
[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/iraq/2003-06-30-death-toll-rising_x.htm
 
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?
 
"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.
 
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. :sad: :mad: :censored: :censored:
 
Last edited:
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.
 
Last edited:
STING2 said:
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,

"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.
 
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.
 
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.

i recognize that there were violations over the last 12 years, but my question was why, if they were such violations, did the rest of the world not want to help us disarm iraq? now, whatever the UN wants is moot, since the US just set the precidence that just because you're a member of the UN doesn't mean you have to abide by its rules. :down:


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.

i'm not forgetting that we have those THREE countries behind us...but remember canada, mexico, germany, italy, austria, spain, and dare i say it france? these countries trade with us and used to like us a lot more than they do now. they won't be getting our backs anytime soon and it was all becasuse rumsfeld wanted a war RIGHT NOW. why right now? why not wait until the UN had agreed or at VERY LEAST until we had more allies?


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.

that's quite an assumption to make about france, germany, and russia.
 
Lilly said:


i'm not forgetting that we have those THREE countries behind us...but remember canada, mexico, germany, italy, austria, spain, and dare i say it france?


Didn't Italy and Spain approve the use of force?
 
speedracer said:


Didn't Italy and Spain approve the use of force?

I believe they were at the press conference. They did not send troops however. Not sure why!
 
Dreadsox said:


I believe they were at the press conference. They did not send troops however. Not sure why!

I don't think we really needed any other country's troops for the actual war. They would really help right now, though.

Still, a word of approval counts for something. I'd post a link to the Don Cherry vs. Ron MacLean debate on Hockey Night in Canada, but it's no longer available on the CBC website.
 
sulawesigirl4,


"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."

In case you forgot. It was the UN inspectors at the end of 1998, that Iraq had 30,000 Bio/Chem capable shells, thousands of liters of Anthrax, hundreds of tons of Mustard Gas and other WMD.

It was not about Hans Blix finding anything, it was for Saddam to give up those weapons or show the remains of their destruction. Saddam did neither.

Saddam had this stuff at the end of 1998. It was incubment upon Saddam once inspections began in late 2002 to either give up the WMD or show the remains of their destruction.
 
Lilly,

"now, whatever the UN wants is moot, since the US just set the precidence that just because you're a member of the UN doesn't mean you have to abide by its rules."

Thats incorrect. There are multiple UN resolutions that approved the use of military force by member states of the UN if Saddam failed to cooperate. The USA, UK, Australia and others abided by the rules and commitments they had made to insure that Saddam was disarmed.

"i'm not forgetting that we have those THREE countries behind us...but remember canada, mexico, germany, italy, austria, spain, and dare i say it france? these countries trade with us and used to like us a lot more than they do now. they won't be getting our backs anytime soon and it was all becasuse rumsfeld wanted a war RIGHT NOW. why right now? why not wait until the UN had agreed or at VERY LEAST until we had more allies?"

There were over 50 countries that supported us independent of what was going on at the UN. Italy and Spain were some of the heaviest supporters politically. Despite what France says, they approved Resolution 1441 which authorized the use of force against Iraq and then in May 2003 approved a resolution that recognized and approved the results of that war and the current post-war occupation and reconstruction of Iraq. But then again, France has always had a history of saying one thing and then doing another.

Saddam was supposed to have been disarmed years ago. Acting now completes what should of happened years ago. It prevents any possible unknown activities from continuing and then becoming a real threat in the future. It insures that Saddam is disarmed of Weapons that he was not allowed to have because of his past behavior.

There is no sense in continuing a process that requires the cooperation of another person when that person is unwilling to cooperate. That is why the coalition had to act now and did.


"that's quite an assumption to make about france, germany, and russia."

Really? Could you explain the efforts those countries made to contain Saddam over the past 12 years and what efforts they made to unseat him from power? If they did anything, they did things that made containing Saddam difficult and seemed more interested in dealing with him in the long term, rather than making any effort to unseat him.
 
"I believe they were at the press conference. They did not send troops however. Not sure why!"

It might be because their military's have not entered the 21st century yet and would simply be in the way rather than aiding the operation.
 
Did Resolution 1441 and 1483 authorize and legalize the war? These lawyers think not!

http://writ.news.findlaw.com/dorf/20030319.html

http://writ.news.findlaw.com/dorf/20020108.html

http://www.asil.org/insights/insigh92.htm

http://www.asil.org/insights/insigh99a1.htm

http://www.asil.org/insights/insigh99.htm

[Q]'There was no threat. There was no resolution'

Professor Philippe Sands QC Director of the Centre on International Courts and Tribunals, University College London The war was contrary to international law and it was contrary to international law whether or not they find weapons of mass destruction. The illegality was based on the absence of a Security Council resolution authorising the use of force. I think that is the view of almost every independent commentator. The claim by the Attorney General, Lord Goldsmith - that the war was legal because Saddam Hussein had failed to comply with UN resolutions dating back to Iraq's invasion of Kuwait - has received almost no support outside the UK or the United States from independent academic commentators.

Professor Robert Black QC Professor of Scots law, Edinburgh University, and architect of the Lockerbie trial in The Hague It's simple and straightforward. There are only two legal justifications for attacking another country: self-defence, or if the Security Council authorises you to do so. It is perfectly plain that none of the Security Council resolutions relating to Iraq authorised armed intervention. It's possible to cobble together what looks like a legal argument, but the real test of any legal argument is whether a court would accept that argument. I challenged the Attorney General to say what he thought the odds were of the International Court of Justice in The Hague accepting his argument. In my view, the odds against were greater than 10 to 1.

Professor Sean Murphy Associate professor of law at George Washington University, Washington DC I think there's a real question to be raised about whether the US, UK and Australian coalition properly intervened in Iraq without Security Council authorisation, and I think there are very sound reasons for saying that the intervention was not permitted. The US-UK legal justification, which is based on Security Council resolutions dating back to 1990-91, isn't credible. When you look closely at the resolutions and the practice of the Security Council, it's clear that the majority of members of the Security Council believed that further authorisation was needed in March 2003 than, in fact, existed.

Professor James Crawford Whewell Professor of International Law, Jesus College, Cambridge On the information available, none of the exceptions that permit the use of force applied. There was no UN Security Council authorisation, and no imminent humanitarian catastrophe, and no imminent threat of the use of force by Iraq. I think it was unlawful in the beginning, and they haven't found anything since to make one change one's mind. The earlier Security Council resolutions were related to the occupation of Kuwait, and that situation has completely changed. It's very contrived to treat Resolution 1441 as if it authorises the use of force.

Professor Mary Kaldor Professor of global governance, London School of Economics Going back to the 1991 UN resolutions is the real weakness of their argument. It is an awfully long time ago, and it's as though this isn't a new war - as if it is the same war we fought in 1991. I think that it is an incredibly weak legal case. I don't think there's any way we can argue that the Iraq intervention was legitimate, and it's illegitimate for two reasons. There was no real case that the inspectors weren't dealing with the weapons of mass destruction. And, we're now seeing what a lot of people warned we would see: that this will be bad for [curbing] terrorism rather than good. [/Q]

http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/issues/iraq/attack/law/2003/0525warillegal.htm

http://www.asil.org/insights/insigh107.htm

Probably the best article I have read on how to manipulate the Security Council through vague resolutions is here:

http://www.asil.org/ajil/lobel.htm
 
Last edited:
STING2 said:


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 don't know if, when counting U.S. casualties, it's fair to only count soldiers killed by hostile fire. 69 U.S. soldiers have died in Iraq since May 1. Most of the deaths not attributed to hostile fire have been due to military vehicle and aircraft crashes and inadvertant gunfire and explosions of ordinance.
 
pub crawler said:



I don't know if, when counting U.S. casualties, it's fair to only count soldiers killed by hostile fire. 69 U.S. soldiers have died in Iraq since May 1. Most of the deaths not attributed to hostile fire have been due to military vehicle and aircraft crashes and inadvertant gunfire and explosions of ordinance.

I meant to put those stats up......I forgot to. Thanks Pub Crawler.
 
Back
Top Bottom