Irag Violence

[wilheim]

A U.S. soldier was killed and three were wounded Friday morning in a rocket-propelled grenade and small-arms attack north of Baghdad, U.S. Central Command said.

The attack on the soldiers from the 4th Infantry Division happened about around 9:15 a.m. (1:15 a.m. ET) near Baquba, about 30 miles (48 kilometers) northeast of the Iraqi capital, Central Command said.

Earlier Friday, attackers fired rocket-propelled grenades at a U.S. military Humvee near a mosque in Fallujah, about 30 miles (48 kilometers) west of Baghdad, according to coalition officials.

Two soldiers were wounded in the attack, which happened around 8:30 a.m. (12:30 a.m. EDT), officials said.

With the latest attack, 144 U.S. soldiers have been killed since President Bush announced the end of major combat on May 1; 66 of those deaths were from hostile fire.

Also Friday, a rocket-propelled grenade was fired at the Bulgarian military headquarters in Karbala, according to the commander in charge of Bulgarian forces, which took control of the area Tuesday. No one was wounded in the attack.

There is no reliable source for Iraqi civilian or combatant casualty figures, either during the period of major combat or after May 1. The Associated Press reported an estimated 3,240 civilian Iraqi deaths between March 20 and April 20, but the AP said that the figure was based on records of only half of Iraq's hospitals and the actual number was thought to be significantly higher.



It seems that we lose one Soldier everyday in Iraq, not to mention those wounded. I feel badly for the families of the troops, they hear on the news that a soldier has been killed and naturally cannot rest until they find out if it is not their son or husband. Must be very difficult.

wil.

 

[bunyon]

Very sad indeed Wil. And who should we point the finger at? You know who, I don't have to say.


_____________________________________________

http://www.draftgore.com

 

[American]

If Gore was President, how would things have been done different since 9/11?

 

[American]

....that's "how would things be done differently since 9/11?" (Since living in Costa Rica my English has gone way down hill.)

 

[bunyon]

Good question American. I think Madeleine Albright sums it up pretty well in the following article.

___________________________________________

US would be safer with Gore: Albright


AFP - The US would now be safer and more popular overseas had Al Gore instead of George W Bush won the 2000 presidential election, former secretary of state Madeleine Albright said.

Albright, who served with the ex-vice president in former president Bill Clinton's administration, said the Bush administration had needlessly antagonised many US allies by going to war with Iraq despite heated opposition in Europe and the Muslim world.

By ignoring or trivialising their concerns, Albright said Bush had squandered the well-spring of international sympathy for and goodwill toward the United States that followed the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks.

In an opinion piece published in the September/October 2003 issue of the scholarly journal "Foreign Affairs," Albright also accused the Bush administration of blundering by invading Iraq before Afghanistan was truly stabilised, Osama bin Laden had been caught and his al-Qaeda network smashed.

"I remain convinced that had Al Gore been elected president, and had the attacks of September 11 still happened, the United States and NATO would have gone to war in Afghanistan together, then deployed forces all around that country and stayed to rebuild it," she wrote.




"Democrats, after all, confess support for nation building, and also believe in finishing the jobs we start," Albright said in a not-too-subtle jibe at the Republican Bush's campaign pledges not to use US troops to bolster new democracies abroad.

"I also believe the United States and NATO together would have remained focused on fighting al-Qaeda and would not have pretended -- and certainly would not have been allowed to get away with pretending -- that the ongoing failure to capture Osama bin Laden did not matter," she said.

While Albright said she understood the need to take on Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein for his repeated violations of UN disarmament resolutions, she stressed the threat posed by Baghdad was not as immediate or dire as Bush had maintained.

Gore, she said, would have acted more appropriately.

"As for Saddam, I believe the Gore team would have read the intelligence information about his activities differently and concluded that a war against Iraq, although justifiable, was not essential in the short term to protect US security," Albright wrote.

"A policy of containment would have been sufficient while the administration pursued the criminals who had murdered thousands on American soil," she said.

"The Bush administration's decision to broaden its focus from opposing al-Qaeda to invading Iraq and threatening military action against others has had unintended and unwelcome consequences," Albright said.

These consequences include growing international popular resentment of the United States, particularly in the Arab world, and increasingly strained relations with the governments of long-time allies like France and Germany, she said.

Despite her complaints, particularly of Bush's black-and-white declaration that countries were either "with" the United States or "against" it in the global war on terrorism and his preference for a policy of "pre-emption", Albright said there was still hope for his administration.

"It is late, but not too late, for the Bush administration to adjust its course," she said.

"It has already shed some of its more optimistic illusions about Iraq, pledged presidential involvement in the Middle East, mended some fences with Europe and reduced the level of self-congratulation in its official pronouncements," Albright said.

 

[American]

That's pretty easy for her to sit back and hindsight and arm-chair quarterback everything that has happened since 9/11, but I doubt it would have went as smoothly as she would like to think it would have. The situation is terribly complicated and made more difficult with emotions running high after 9/11. This is a completely new type of "war" on terrorism without much experience or precedance to draw from. Without the benefit hindsight, the Bush team has had to make some very tough decisions. Mistakes were made, but the reality is that they've had to make this up as they went along.

Where do we go from here is what we should be thinking about. Albright doesn't seem to offer any insight on that.

Thanks for the article, Bunyon.

 

[bunyon]

American, The one thing I have said from the start is, Instead of making Iraq the number 1 priority, it should've been to go after bin Laden and al-Qaeda. Thats not hindsight. We knew they were responsible for the attacks of 9-11. It has been exposed now that Saddam was not involved. Who would have been the target in your scope?

 

[Oceans11]

You didn't have to invade Iraq.

Everyone knew that, it wasn't rocket science.

It was the invasion of Iraq that lost the US its overseas sympathy and support.

No one made a big deal over Afghanistan.
You had reasonable cause, and the people there needed deliverance from the religious nutters anyway.


Everything was peachy.(well it was ok)


Then George no-brain drove an M1 Abrahams straight through the maze of diplomacy and international goodwill that every country needs for help and support in its long term overseas policy and objectives.

So now we've got to suck on it guys.

The price is a scenario not unlike Vietnam in Iraq.
And for the bad guys its business as usual. Nothing significant has changed for the cells of loonies, but there are far more opportunities to kill Americans now.

[This message was edited by eek on August 30, 2003 at 02:31 PM.]

 

[bblight]

Bunyon - read a book, will you - maybe a history book! Madeline Albright is a Clinton eltist - don't you remember Kosovo? The Chinese embassy bombing, The aspirin factory bombing - what do you have to say about the following:

Six observtions about Madeleine Albright:


1. Albright lacks compassion
Madeline Albright was asked whether the over half a million children killed by the [Iraqi] sanctions were "worth it." Her response was: "It’s a hard choice, but I think, we, think, it’s worth it." [60 Minutes, May 11, 1996]

2. Albright is a lousy manager
"Relations are strained between Madeleine Albright's State Department and the reporters who cover it. Lower-level officials have been kept off-limits, their bosses discouraged from talking. But as a new press spokesman takes command, hopes for a thaw are in the air." State of Tension - AJR, April 2000

3. Albright has little ability for strategic thinking
One year after NATO first intervened in Kosovo, it appears the alliance has failed to fulfill its chief objectives, both in waging the war and keeping the peace.Kosovo: One Year Later
If victory has a hundred fathers but defeat is an orphan, it is now time to trace the lineage of the humanitarian and strategic catastrophe in Serbia to Secretary of State Madeleine Albright. - Madeleine Albright: The Spiritual Patron Of The Disaster In Kosovo - by Arianna Huffington

4. US foreign policy is fundamentally flawed
The American foreign policy elite, Democrats and Republicans alike, regularly boasts that the United States is the world's only superpower -- unrivaled in its ability and willingness to project military power and influence around the globe. Yet what does this swaggering global dominance have to do with ensuring the security and safety of the Republic and its citizens? See: Year 2000 Warning from Uncle Sam: "Duck and Cover" by Ivan Eland, Cato Institute

During the 1990s, U.S. foreign policy focused on the threat posed by what was dubbed "rogue states." These states, including at various times, Iraq, Yugoslavia, North Korea, Libya and Cuba ... Given the operational and doctrinal obsession with rogue nations, it is fascinating to note that in not a single case was this policy actually successful, with the possible exception of Haiti. - stratfor.com

5. Albright is a poor communicator
Albright was drowned out at one point by a group chanting, "One, two, three, four, we don't want your racist war," as she tried to explain U.S. policy to the audience of 6,000. U.S. policy on Iraq draws fire in Ohio - cnn

6. Madeleine Albright as possible War Criminal
Protesters confronted Madeline Albright outside the induction ceremonies for the Women's Hall of Fame, in Seneca Falls New York. The protest was against the U.S./UN sanctions against Iraq. The demonstration was called by a coalition of groups including the International Action Center, Iraq Sanctions Challenge, Pax Christi, Syracuse and Rochester. "Madeline Albright should be on trial in front of an international war crimes tribunal, not receiving an honor," said Sarah Sloan of the Iraq Sanctions Challenge. PRESS RELEASE - International Action Center

Bunyon - there are still a lot of people out there who believe that Madelina Albright should be tried for war crimes - so please don't try to make her out to be worthy of making criticisms of her betters.

 

[bunyon]

First of all I wasn't trying to make Albright out to be anything. I just posted the article as a view of what things might have been like under Gore.

Second. You want to talk history books. You had better be worried how history is going to remember "Dubya", with Iraq-nam going on and this piss-poor economy here at home.

______________________________________________

http://www.draftgore.com/

[This message was edited by bunyon on August 30, 2003 at 05:37 PM.]