14 more today. 43 US Soldiers killed in Last 10 Days in Iraq

We are in the final throes of this here insurgency, but it don't even matter cuz the mission's already been accomplished!

 

Of course, according to Rumsfeld, the "final throes" could last 12 years!

 

21 GIs were killed in just the past 24 hours.

It absolutely tears up my heart when I hear something like this. You just can't get used to it.

 

It's been a very tough run for our troops lately ~ I truly hope we can figure some way to get that **** under control soon.

 

It is odd that right now they are talking about pulling out troops. That may or may not be a wise decision. But the only vague exit strategy we have been given is when Iraq is stable and they can police their nation themselves.

Iraq certainly isn't capable of being controlled or made stable by the U.S. and Iraq troops combined. I guess by this point we should be used to the administration moving the goal posts, but it is strange.

 

Isn't sad the "brutal" Saddam ruled Iraq in the late 70s and 80s fine with US support, but we can't get do anything now?

 

I know a guy at my job whose brother-in-law was killed in Iraq over the weekend.

 

Which will most likely never happen. As soon as we leave, there will be the expected civil war between the more extremist arms of the various religious factions, all jostling for a bigger piece of the pie.

This was a bad idea from the get-go, and the fact that Wolfowitz and company thought we'd breeze in, set up a stable democracy, then breeze back out shows just how little effort they put into actually studying possible outcomes.

 

Are you trying to insinuate that Saddam wasn't brutal? Wow you really need to educate yourself. That is unbelievable. He gassed his own people (Kurds). Have you seen the mass graves they've found dotted around Iraq? Please do yourself a favor and educate yourself before sounding so ignorant. Thanks in advance.

 

No, but it is sad that brutality is the only form of peace the Iraqis have known in the past decades. By the way, I am part Kurdish and I know all about the murders committed.

 

The only person who can stabilize Iraq again at this point and get the country under semi-control is...Saddam!

It's a painful lesson, but nevertheless likely a necessary one that the Neocons had to put the country through so that the American people could finally see how looney these people are. Unfrotunately, it's a high cost paid by our military and by the citizens of Iraq, London, and Madrid.

Let's hope that this disasterous and dangerous idealism would be outright rejected next time these radicals try to cook up another plot and mislead the country into war once again.

 

I don't think Saddam will or should ever make a political comeback but I've been wondering for if the only solution to stabilizing Iraq so we can leave is to install another dictator.

I would like to believe that Iraq can become a stable democracy but at this point the tensions and chaos dividing it don't seem like that is likely.

 

Too late! They let the Lion out of the cage, now the Shi'as and the Kurds won't ever accept Sunni dictatorship again, and the Sunnis are the ONLY ones who have the experience of ruling Iraq, they were the ruling elites.

Obviously, I was being sarcastic about the Saddam thing, but imagine how funny it would be if all of a sudden Saddam held a press conference and said to his countrymen, "I'm Back!" Sura himself would faint.

 

Iraq can become a stable democracy, but people are looking at much too short a timeline. Our civil war was almost 100 years after our country established a democracy and moved away from the previous dictatorship. Basically none of the Iraqi citizenry have any experience living in a democracy, they are used to Saddam being the law. Iraq will become a stable democracy once the generations born into their democratic system become the people in charge. We are looking at generations, not months or years. In the end though, this can certainly have a positive outcome.

 

Can you imagine what would have happened, if the liberals were around during WWII, exploiting the death of every soldier as a way to help erode support for the broader war?

By comparison, this war has been extremely efficient with as few US deaths as humanly possible. Compared to virtually any war, this effort has been remarkable. We mourn each loss, but it is simply horrible taste to trumpet each loss and say "I told you so" at the expense of a fallen soldier.

 

Don't you think it is reching a little too far even for you to compae the Iraq war with WWII?

 

One of the liberals was the President of the U.S. at the start of WWII.

Secondly, reporting on factual deaths is just getting the truth out, and not exploiting anything.

Finally we haven't been efficient with as few US deaths as humanly possible. That is wrong in several ways.

1. We didn't have to invade which certainly would have had fewer US deaths.

2. We could have used the plans that were already developed by the state department and supported by the likes of General Garner the person who was appointed to oversee the reconstruction of Iraq. Those plans which were already developed detailed policing, an Iraqi constitution, elections, the rebuilding and reorganization of Iraqi security forces, providing electricity, preventing looting, and even down to details such as garbage collection. Using those plans would have been much more efficient and enabled an earlier withdraw of troops which would have cost far fewer US lives.

I have posted the links with interviews to General Garner and others. I'm surprised that once again someone like you, who claims to have such support for the troops, wasn't upset at General Garner being ordered to abandon these plans, having more US troops than need be killed and wounded in operations in Iraq. It is a shameful stance.

 

It would be a sweet justice if ...

 

Did you chop these?