TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Political Discussion / Debate
-- 15 dead and 21 wounded US soldiers in the newest Iraqi attack!

15 dead and 21 wounded US soldiers in the newest Iraqi attack!

quote:

Fifteen die as US helicopter downed Black Hawk helicopters hunted for survivors Fifteen American soldiers have been killed and 21 wounded in an attack on a US military helicopter in Iraq, the US military has confirmed. It is the highest number of casualties suffered by the US-led coalition in a single incident since Saddam Hussein was toppled in April. The helicopter came down in a cornfield near the flashpoint town of Falluja, 50 kilometres (32 miles) west of the capital. Iraqi witnesses said it was hit by one of two surface-to-air missiles fired at it, but the US military has not confirmed the cause. One military spokesman said the helicopter was hit by an "unknown weapon", but later, the military said it might have crashed while taking evasive action. "We are aware of eyewitnesses seeing what they presumed to be missile trails," US army Colonel William Darley told reporters. 'Tragic day' The helicopter was one of two twin-rotor Chinooks flying nearly 60 personnel from a US military base to Baghdad International Airport, from where they were due to fly abroad for rest and recreation. Falluja's anger Sunday marked the start of an expanded leave programme for US personnel - many of whom have been in the region for more than a year. The helicopter was almost totally destroyed in the incident, which happened at about 0900 (0600 GMT). Television pictures showed US personnel recovering the dead and wounded from smoking debris. Responding to the news, US Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld said the US would continue its war on global terror and efforts to stabilise Iraq. "Clearly it is a tragic day for Americans," Mr Rumsfeld told ABC television. "In a long hard war we are going to have tragic days." Some Iraqis in Falluja expressed delight at Sunday's attack. "The Americans are pigs. We will hold a celebration because this helicopter went down - a big celebration," an Iraqi farmer near the crash site told Reuters news agency. The downing of the helicopter was one of a number of attacks on US forces in Iraq on Sunday. One American soldier died when his convoy was attacked in the early hours in Baghdad, while unconfirmed reports say up to four troops were killed in an attack on a convoy in Falluja. Fact file: Chinook Falluja lies within the so-called "Sunni triangle" of central Iraq - a largely Sunni Muslim area where resistance to the US-led coalition's occupation has been intense. US military officials have repeatedly warned that hundreds of surface-to-air missiles remain unaccounted for in Iraq. The Chinook, which has a crew of four, is a heavy-lift helicopter used primarily for moving troops and transporting artillery. Intensified attacks A total of 138 American troops have now been killed in attacks since US President George W Bush declared major combat operations over on 1 May - more than died in the war itself. Attacks on coalition troops have intensified in the past week, reaching an average of more than 30 a day. MAJOR POST-WAR ATTACKS 27 Oct: 36 killed in co-ordinated suicide attacks on Red Cross HQ and police stations in Baghdad 29 Aug: Shia Muslim cleric Ayatollah Mohammed Baqr al-Hakim among 80 killed in bombing in Najaf 19 Aug: UN special representative among 22 killed in attack on UN HQ in Baghdad The BBC's Jill McGivering in Baghdad says the planning and execution of some recent attacks has led to speculation the militants opposed to the coalition have now formed into a more cohesive, better organised force. There had been rumours that this weekend would see co-ordinated attacks on coalition targets. A senior British member of the Coalition Provisional Authority in Iraq, Sir Jeremy Greenstock, told the BBC that the people carrying out the attacks were a "nasty mix". He said they were supporters of former Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein, "imported terrorists", and criminals released from jail by the former regime before it fell. Sunday's incidents follow an announcement by the chief US administrator in Iraq, Paul Bremer, that he wants to accelerate the handover of authority to Iraqis.

Hmm, seems that the situation down there is getting worse every day. I'm starting to have suspicions if americans will be able to finish what they started.

SAVE LIVES, GET THE FUCK OUT

quote:

Originally posted by ahlamalek SAVE LIVES, GET THE FUCK OUT

I don't think that would save lives, American lives perhaps.. but not lives.

quote:

Originally posted by Yoepus I don't think that would save lives, American lives perhaps.. but not lives.

exactly, there would be even more chaos over who would assume power. It is a bad situation over there. There is a lot of anti-americanism over there and it makes the progress the us is trying to make harder. It would be fair to argue that the way americans are reconstructing sucks, but attacking them is not going to make the situation better.

Best solution might be for the US to fund another to rebuild. There is little trust between the us and the iraqies, so if another group that they did trust and were not so opposed to took over reconstruction funded by the us maybe then progress might begin.

just a guess though.

quote:

Originally posted by Boomer187 Best solution might be for the US to fund another to rebuild. There is little trust between the us and the iraqies, so if another group that they did trust and were not so opposed to took over reconstruction funded by the us maybe then progress might begin. just a guess though.

That was the point of the US going to the UN to see if they could help out, but of course everyone laughed at the US and didnt see that point, it's like they'd prefer it that both the iraqi and american people suffer. lately it seems like the UN has been sending more officials out of iraq rather then into it.

America definetly realizes that there is anti americanism there so they try and push forward a more broad alliance, such as always refering to "coalition forces" on the leaflets they've passed around (check that other thread). And by bringing in the UN it can show the iraqi people the whole world is there to help them out.

but yes the iraqi resitance fighters are only causing the iraqis more harm then good, instead of creating a hasty reconstruction and implentation of a new government, they are delaying the process and throwing the country into chaos and anarchy.

I was being silly, of course there will be more deaths, americans presence or not, because there will be a civil war between the 3 main ethnics groups.

The only way to prevent that is to have a strong govt, yes another dictator. Sad but true.

quote:

Originally posted by ahlamalek The only way to prevent that is to have a strong govt, yes another dictator. Sad but true.

i kinda agree with that... but then everyone would see that dictator as a 'puppet' of the US rather then a leader elected by the iraqi people. regardless i'd recommend you read the book, The Future of Freedom by Fareed Zakaria. It gets into how democracies have formed throughout history and how they can be introduced into countries... really interesting.

quote:

Originally posted by Izzy That was the point of the US going to the UN to see if they could help out, but of course everyone laughed at the US and didnt see that point, it's like they'd prefer it that both the iraqi and american people suffer. lately it seems like the UN has been sending more officials out of iraq rather then into it. America definetly realizes that there is anti americanism there so they try and push forward a more broad alliance, such as always refering to "coalition forces" on the leaflets they've passed around (check that other thread). And by bringing in the UN it can show the iraqi people the whole world is there to help them out. but yes the iraqi resitance fighters are only causing the iraqis more harm then good, instead of creating a hasty reconstruction and implentation of a new government, they are delaying the process and throwing the country into chaos and anarchy.

Theres a say that goes like this .. " If you spit up, it will fall on your face".. and thats the situation with the US. It really saddens me to see more and more US soldiers die. But coming to the topic you brought up. I dont remember the UN laughing at the US or anything like it. - Im sure that everyone remembers what the UN had actually told the US, and now the US is facing its own punishment, without anyone giving it to it. Sad but true. - It was clearly said and talked about the consequences after US plans of taking over Iraq. Its more then obvious that the US gov't mis-calculated and did a terrible job with Post-war planning. Top officials say it, but dont want to admit it, and it sickens me.

Well, that prediction of taking Saddam out will bring more peace to the world and wipe out terrorism, since it was believed that the funding to those terrorist would stop. Well, as predicted and said, that aspect has gotten worst, and Iraquis are paying the price, as well as the US soldiers and americans alike. Iraq has become a harvest place for terrorism, and US has created even a stronger hate in the muslim world, meaning.. more terrorism. So basically, all this groups that hate americans are willing to do anything against them.- US seeking help in UN was the right move.. but, it was a hypocritical move, asking for fundings and such, but still heaving the US sending its own and allies contractors. Ofcourse UN had to be strong with US after US shoved it up. I mean its obvious. So basically, the only way I see this making it as a a more " involucrating the world to help out" .. is by just giving Iraq to the U.N.'s hand. Obviously, this will be one of the worst political moves for Bush's administration, and it will be a big harrasment for the US to do so, but its the only way that I see it. Rumsfeld even admitted that things are harsh in Iraq and Afghanistan. If he admits it, imagine how worst it is then.

Iraq needs a Dictator. As an Iraqui police officer once said.. " It would take 5 Saddam Husseins to bring order to Iraq".. even though Saddam was a brutal bastard, there was order in Iraq. If it werent for the sanctions, it would've been one of the most prosperous ( this is if one is talking about the conditions of living in there ) .... so my point is. It would be incredible if Democracy is ever stablished there, although is a very doubtfull thing to do, if one really knows the cultural history of Iraq and its people. Thats when I come about to say that US was very ignorant and arrogant to just plan something that really takes time and MIND of the situation in Iraq. Things get worst by the day, and if its Saddam really behind many of this attacks, the dude is basically smarter then all the US intelligence put together.

quote:

Originally posted by Izzy That was the point of the US going to the UN to see if they could help out, but of course everyone laughed at the US and didnt see that point, it's like they'd prefer it that both the iraqi and american people suffer. lately it seems like the UN has been sending more officials out of iraq rather then into it. America definetly realizes that there is anti americanism there so they try and push forward a more broad alliance, such as always refering to "coalition forces" on the leaflets they've passed around (check that other thread). And by bringing in the UN it can show the iraqi people the whole world is there to help them out. but yes the iraqi resitance fighters are only causing the iraqis more harm then good, instead of creating a hasty reconstruction and implentation of a new government, they are delaying the process and throwing the country into chaos and anarchy.

The Islamist fighters in Iraq respect the UN and International Red Cross about as much as the US, and I agree that they are making an already bad situation much worse. In many attacks they often kill more Iraqis than Americans.

quote:

Originally posted by DaveSaenz The Islamist fighters in Iraq respect the UN and International Red Cross about as much as the US, and I agree that they are making an already bad situation much worse. In many attacks they often kill more Iraqis than Americans.

Those probably aren't even Iraquis.

Well this certainly isn't going to help bush in 2004. I read that the polls have dropped on him so now people are evenly divided on support/disapproval of Bush's handling of the Iraq war. I did hear something he said on NPR that I have to give him credit for however, he did state that regardless of it being an election year, he's going to remain adament about seeing Iraq through to the end as if it weren't an election year.

quote:

Originally posted by occrider Well this certainly isn't going to help bush in 2004. I read that the polls have dropped on him so now people are evenly divided on support/disapproval of Bush's handling of the Iraq war. I did hear something he said on NPR that I have to give him credit for however, he did state that regardless of it being an election year, he's going to remain adament about seeing Iraq through to the end as if it weren't an election year.

So, Cheney, looks like your chair is shaking, eh?

quote:

Originally posted by DrUg_Tit0 So, Cheney, looks like your chair is shaking, eh?

No, I'm part of the shadow government too

quote:

Originally posted by occrider Well this certainly isn't going to help bush in 2004. I read that the polls have dropped on him so now people are evenly divided on support/disapproval of Bush's handling of the Iraq war. I did hear something he said on NPR that I have to give him credit for however, he did state that regardless of it being an election year, he's going to remain adament about seeing Iraq through to the end as if it weren't an election year.

- True, but as I also heard political commentaries say that, even though Bush said he wont look at it as an election year, he's going around and collecting money strongly, and using whatever little evidence or exaggerated proofs to rally americans and such. I mean, even if all the American soldiers were been wiped out like nothing, Bush HAS to say positive things and ladaladalada.. if you know what I mean. He has no other way around.

Im quite surprised though on how low key the democrat canditates have been, in fact, on many issues, such as the leak, war on Iraq, medicare, education, environment etc etc... Im sure that if this were republicans, they would be sparking anager like crazy hehehe...

On a side note.. whats up with Powell?? its he hiding?

Looks like another Vietnam...

quote:

Originally posted by Galapidate Looks like another Vietnam...

maybe to someone from outter space...

The UN has its uses but lately, all they have been doing is nothing. all talk and no action is the UN slogan these days. when america wanted to go to war, (no, im mean bush) they had good reasons, saddam could have made massivly destructive weapons to give to terrorists....but as we know, arabs just love a good jihad every once and while, and saddam seemed to have things in control, but who cares about saddam and his government...

america should have never let that looting spree happen when baghdad fell, because many weapons and ammo was looted and many things that could have helped rebuilding...

lastly, those jihadist, islamic fundamentalist, and any other radicals and resistance fighters in irak PISS ME THE FUCK OFF. Sorry children but your daddy has died. the new one has come to take over. all the other little children want to move on and (rebuild), but these fucking radicals are just making things worse for they own people and fellow moslims...

Just my rant

Ever since September 11, it appears that America's image in the eyes of has become increasingly negative.

September 11 was a huge tragedy for America, and for humanity. I don't want to take away from that fact at all. I merely want to discuss the important issues related to America's foreign policy, and paticularly, America's "War on Terror".

It is extremely important to look at the causes of the tragedy. Why did this happen? What were the factors that led to it? It appears that George W. Bush et al have neglected to learn from 9/11 in a number of ways:

It appears that America's long history of violence will continue, so long as they refuse to have a major rethink of foreign policy. The 20th century contains many instances of the US engaging in conflict and war - WWII, Korea, Vietnam, Panama, Chile, Iraq,Iran, Afghanistan - the list goes on.

Admittedly, America believed that they were 'doing the right thing' in these countries. But what were the REAL objectives? The US has only entered confilcts when they were to gain a benefit. The current conflict in Iraq is a fine example of this. America's decisive 'victory' in Iraq has turned into a drawn-out bloody conflict that does not look like ending any time soon. Could somebody please tell me where the logic and reason lies in bombing the shit out of an entire country to remove Saddam Hussein, and then awarding lucrative billion-dollar contracts to American companies (friends of Rumsfeld) to rebuild the country again. Is that the idea? Flatten the place, then start fresh?

America's motives for entering Iraq were said to be to remove Saddam Hussein's brutal regime, find his "Weapons of Mass Destruction" and bring safety, freedom and democracy to the people of Iraq. How clear it is that these goals have not been realised. No Weapons of Mass Destruction have been found after nearly a year of inspection. The UN weapons inspectors could have told them that. Freedom? The Iraqis are hardly free at this point. Safety? It could be argued that the situation was better under Saddam. It is clear that the Iraqis are fed up with the US occupying their country - almost daily bomb attacks reinforce this.


Europe, the UN and much of the free world realise that war is not the answer. Violence begets violence, as the saying goes. Why is it that George Bush continues an agressive military policy that not eliminate terroists, but instead breed thousands more.

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.