Hundreds killed in Iraq, says US

[st8_o_mind]

From the BBC

Hundreds killed in Iraq, says US

US-led forces in Iraq have issued new casualty figures confirming that the country has seen the bloodiest period of fighting since Saddam Hussein fell.
US Brig Gen Mark Kimmitt said about 70 coalition troops had been killed in Iraq since 1 April, while casualties among insurgents were 10 times as high.

President George W Bush said things had improved after a "tough week" in Iraq.

But US commanders have asked for two more brigades to deal with growing unrest, including a rise in abductions.


Complete test: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3620109.stm


Just another example of the liberal press ignoring the "good news" out of Iraq. For example nowhere in the article does it even mention how great business has improved for the undertakers in Iraq. Damn liberals.

 

[jimnyc]

Originally posted by st8_o_mind
Just another example of the liberal press ignoring the "good news" out of Iraq. For example nowhere in the article does it even mention how great business has improved for the undertakers in Iraq. Damn liberals.

I guess you missed the part about "casualties among insurgents were 10 times as high." - That's outstanding news.

And yes, this is a perfect example of the liberal media bias, thank you for strengthening my point. There are humanitarian and rebuilding efforts going on over there daily - yet the dopes you subscribe to choose to never report that but rather report only the deaths. So sad that being lead by the media will deny you ALL the news.

 

[JIHADTHIS]

from the linked BBC article:

It is not clear what the seven Chinese men detained late on Sunday were doing in Iraq.

Chinese sources say they were farmers and fishermen from Fujian province in south-east China and did not work for the government.

Hours after the Chinese authorities appealed for their release, the official Chinese news agency, Xinhua, reported that they had been freed, but gave no further details.

The BBC's Rupert Wingfield-Hayes in Beijing says the abductions make little sense to most Chinese, since China opposed the US-led war and has no troops in Iraq.


What, did they make a wrong turn at Albequerque?

 

[OCA]

Originally posted by st8_o_mind
From the BBC

Hundreds killed in Iraq, says US

US-led forces in Iraq have issued new casualty figures confirming that the country has seen the bloodiest period of fighting since Saddam Hussein fell.
US Brig Gen Mark Kimmitt said about 70 coalition troops had been killed in Iraq since 1 April, while casualties among insurgents were 10 times as high.

President George W Bush said things had improved after a "tough week" in Iraq.

But US commanders have asked for two more brigades to deal with growing unrest, including a rise in abductions.


Complete test: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3620109.stm


Just another example of the liberal press ignoring the "good news" out of Iraq. For example nowhere in the article does it even mention how great business has improved for the undertakers in Iraq. Damn liberals.

Now if we could get that death toll up to 10 times as high this thing will be finished in no time at all.

 

[MadMax]

Originally posted by JIHADTHIS
from the linked BBC article:

It is not clear what the seven Chinese men detained late on Sunday were doing in Iraq.

Chinese sources say they were farmers and fishermen from Fujian province in south-east China and did not work for the government.

Hours after the Chinese authorities appealed for their release, the official Chinese news agency, Xinhua, reported that they had been freed, but gave no further details.

The BBC's Rupert Wingfield-Hayes in Beijing says the abductions make little sense to most Chinese, since China opposed the US-led war and has no troops in Iraq.


What, did they make a wrong turn at Albequerque?

Not very bright are they? They are given waaaaay too much credit in the brains dept. IMHO. I mean what the F does it take to blow yourself up and kidnap people trying to help you???? I would guess borderline retardedness if not full blown....( pun intended )

 

[insein]

Originally posted by JIHADTHIS
from the linked BBC article:

It is not clear what the seven Chinese men detained late on Sunday were doing in Iraq.

Chinese sources say they were farmers and fishermen from Fujian province in south-east China and did not work for the government.

Hours after the Chinese authorities appealed for their release, the official Chinese news agency, Xinhua, reported that they had been freed, but gave no further details.

The BBC's Rupert Wingfield-Hayes in Beijing says the abductions make little sense to most Chinese, since China opposed the US-led war and has no troops in Iraq.


What, did they make a wrong turn at Albequerque?

More evidence that terrorists dont discriminate. They are equal opportunity murderers. It doesnt matter if you appease them or fight them to the death, they want to kill you because you are not what the feel is right.

 

[MadMax]

Originally posted by OCA
Now if we could get that death toll up to 10 times as high this thing will be finished in no time at all.

Hell yea, and if it takes 100 times then so be it... I say bring more troops in, open the borders from Syria, Saudia Arabia, Iran and slaughter ALL the little terrorist wannabe bitches. Only sad thing about it is the loss of America and Coalition troops.What's wrong with slaughtering these idiots in one place?And before anyone questions me sending others to fight, I have a simple answer. I have family fighting now and I fought before so screw you. I hope G.W. keeps up the heat and has 4 more to do it. So sit back, shut the fuck up, and let us men take care of your sorry asses. Oh and tell Miss Kerry to stay home and fondle his lil precious medals ( since he didn't actually throw them ) " in his lil tantrum " over the White House fence.:dance2:

 

[st8_o_mind]

Originally posted by OCA
Now if we could get that death toll up to 10 times as high this thing will be finished in no time at all.

So 10 X 70 would be 700 more dead American soldiers. Or don't they count? I have a feeling that their families are not quite as enthusiastic about the body count as you are.

 

[Annie]

Thought this was interesting, the media is doing all they can to help Kerry and it takes a Russian paper to shed some light here:

http://www.instapundit.com/archives/014999.php
April 12, 2004
THE MOSCOW TIMES OF ALL PLACES, feels the need to tell us that Iraq isn't Vietnam -- or Chechnya:


The Iraqi insurgents in Fallujah outnumbered the Marines and were armed with Kalashnikov automatic rifles, RPG-7 antitank grenade launchers and mortars. Chechen fighters used the same weapons in Grozny in 1995, 1996 and 2000, killing thousands of Russian soldiers and destroying hundreds of armored vehicles.

Just like the Russians in Grozny, the Marines last week were supported by tanks and attack helicopters, but the end result was entirely different. U.S. forces did not bomb the city indiscriminately. The Iraqis fought well but were massacred. According to the latest body count, some 600 Iraqis died and another 1,000 were wounded. The Marines lost some 20 men.


Read the whole thing. The reader sending the link observes that it's interesting that a Russian military analyst notices differences that the American media keep glossing over.


posted at 10:02 PM by Glenn Reynolds:
http://www.themoscowtimes.com/stories/2004/04/13/009-print.html

Tuesday, April 13, 2004

Senator, Iraq Is No Vietnam

By Pavel Felgenhauer The administration of U.S. President George W. Bush has plenty of enemies both at home and abroad. A lot of people would love to see Bush get a bloody nose in Iraq, or anywhere else. Last week the critics had a field day: With heavy fighting in Fallujah and sporadic clashes breaking out elsewhere, Democratic Senator Edward Kennedy said that Iraq had become "George Bush's Vietnam," and declared that the United States needs a new leader.

It was Kennedy's older brother, John F. Kennedy, who dragged the United States into the Vietnam quagmire, and the senator should know better than to compare Vietnam and Iraq.

The Vietnam War was a battlefield in the global Cold War that pitted the United States against the Soviet Union and its allies. The Soviet defense industry supplied the North Vietnamese with the latest weapons. In 1975 North Vietnamese regulars, armed and trained by the Soviets, took Saigon. "Winning" the war in Vietnam was impossible without first winning the Cold War. So long as the Soviets were able to maintain a global balance of power, any local war -- in Vietnam, Afghanistan, Nicaragua -- tended to develop into a quagmire.

Today the world is a very different place, and the scope of the fighting in Iraq cannot be compared to Vietnam. The United States lost more than 60,000 soldiers and 8,000 aircraft in Vietnam. U.S. casualties in Iraq number fewer than 500. The nature of combat of Iraq, as demonstrated in Fallujah last week, is also different. Four U.S. civilian contractors were killed and their bodies mutilated by local residents. Less than 2,000 Marines moved in to find and punish the perpetrators.

Under Saddam Hussein, the Sunni Muslims of Fallujah, a city of some 400,000 inhabitants, were regularly recruited to serve as officers in the armed forces and the security services. When Baghdad fell, these loyalists found themselves out of a job and returned home. In Fallujah, they formed underground armed groups and waited for the Marines to attack. It is possible that the killing of the four contractors was a deliberate provocation intended to lure U.S. forces into the streets of Fallujah, where local armed bands lay in wait. In Vietnam, and more recently in Somalia in 1993, U.S. losses during street fighting led to outcry back home and the unconditional withdrawal of U.S. troops.

The Iraqi insurgents in Fallujah outnumbered the Marines and were armed with Kalashnikov automatic rifles, RPG-7 antitank grenade launchers and mortars. Chechen fighters used the same weapons in Grozny in 1995, 1996 and 2000, killing thousands of Russian soldiers and destroying hundreds of armored vehicles.

Just like the Russians in Grozny, the Marines last week were supported by tanks and attack helicopters, but the end result was entirely different. U.S. forces did not bomb the city indiscriminately. The Iraqis fought well but were massacred. According to the latest body count, some 600 Iraqis died and another 1,000 were wounded. The Marines lost some 20 men.

The Marines are far better trained, of course, but the Iraqis were fighting in their hometown. The decisive difference between the two sides was the extensive use of a computerized command, control and targeting system by the U.S. military. Satellites, manned and unmanned aircraft collected precise information on enemy and friendly movements on the battlefield night and day.

Modern U.S. field commanders have real-time access to this system, allowing them to monitor the changing situation on the battlefield as no commander in the history of war has been able to do. This technology has greatly enhanced the effectiveness of aerial bombardments in the last decade. And now the nature of house-to-house combat has changed as well.

The more accurate historical analogy to the current war in Iraq is not Vietnam but, say, the battle at Omdurman, Sudan, in 1898, when Horatio Herbert Kitchener, a British field marshal, crushed the Sudanese forces of al-Mahdi by bringing machine guns to bear against the enemy's muskets and spears. Today the United States has the capability and the technical superiority to fight and win colonial wars against numerically superior enemies.

But military superiority is not enough. Will the Bush administration -- or the Democrats, should they win the White House in November -- prove better, kinder rulers of the world than the British Liberals and Tories of a century ago?


Pavel Felgenhauer is an independent defense analyst.