THE US, THE UN AND IRAQ, ELEVENTH THREAD

http://www.defenselink.mil/news/casualty.pdf

4097

Operation Iraqi Freedom + Operation Enduring Freedom


~~~

Sorry, I didn't add all the numbers up together.

~~~

Iraq suicide bombings kill at least 175
More than 200 hurt in blasts; 5 U.S. servicemembers killed in chopper crash
BREAKING NEWS
MSNBC News Services
Updated: 2:35 p.m. PT Aug 14, 2007

BAGHDAD - Four suicide bombers hit a Kurdish Yazidi community in northwest Iraq on Tuesday, killing at least 175 people and wounding 200 others, the Iraqi military said.

The bombs tore through communities near Qahataniya, 75 miles west of Mosul, Iraq's third-largest city, according to Iraq Army Capt. Mohammed Ahmed and Abdul-Rahman al-Shimiri, the top government official in the area.

The violence came as 16,000 U.S. and Iraqi troops began a new operation north of the Iraqi capital targeting insurgents who have fled a crackdown in the restive city of Baqouba, the military said Tuesday.

The attack was the deadliest in Iraq since 215 people were killed Nov. 23 when mortar rounds and five car bombs devastated a Shiite neighborhood of Sadr City.

Yazidis are members of an ancient, primarily Kurdish, religious sect that worships an angel figure some that Christians and Muslims believe to be the devil.

Al-Shimiri and Ahmed said at least 30 homes were destroyed in the bombings.

Dhakil Qassim, mayor of Sinjar, a town near where the attacks occurred, said al-Qaida in Iraq was behind the attack, citing what he said were Kurdish government intelligence reports.

"This is a terrorist act and the people targeted are poor Yazidis who have nothing to do with the armed conflict," Qassim said. "Al-Qaida fighters are very active in this area near the Syrian border."

U.S. helicopters swooped into the area to evacuate the wounded to hospitals in Dahuk, a Kurdish city near the Turkish border about 60 miles north of Qahataniya.

Civilian cars and ambulances also rushed the wounded to hospitals in Dahuk, police said.

U.S. chopper crash
Elsewhere, an American transport helicopter crashed near an air base in Anbar, killing five U.S. servicemembers.

The U.S. military said the CH-47 Chinook helicopter crashed near its al-Taqaddum air base outside Falluja, 30 miles west of Baghdad, while conducting a "routine post-maintenance check flight."

There was no indication whether it was shot down. An investigation is under way.

Four more U.S. soldiers were reported killed in separate attacks ?- three in an explosion near their vehicle Monday in the northwestern Ninevah province and another who died of wounds from combat in western Baghdad.

In a separate attack, a fifth suicide truck bomber struck a strategic bridge on the main highway linking Baghdad with the northern city of Mosul, killing at least 10, police said.

The span was bombed three months ago and only one lane had reopened, according to the police officials, who spoke on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to release the information.

And in Baghdad, dozens of uniformed gunmen in 17 official vehicles stormed an Oil Ministry compound and abducted a deputy oil minister and three other officials, a ministry spokesman and police said.

The Associated Press and Reuters contributed to this report.

URL: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20250066/

Kurdish rebels warn Iraq over haven deal with Turkey

* Spokesman says if PKK is attacked, Iraq and Turkey will pay the price

ARBIL: The Kurdistan Workers' Party (PKK) on Monday warned Iraq and Turkey against launching any crackdown on the separatist movement after both countries agreed to end its safe haven on the frontier.

"The Iraqi government should not interfere in the conflict between us and Turkey", spokesman Abdelrahman Chadarchi told AFP by telephone from the Qandil mountains on the Iraq-Iran border. "If they plan to strike at the PKK politically or militarily, Iraq and Turkey will pay the price and the crises in Iraq and Turkey will deepen", he added without elaborating.

Chadarchi denied that his party received military aid from either Iraqi Kurds or the United States. On August 7 Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki and Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan signed a document of cooperation to end the safe haven that separatist Turkish Kurd rebels enjoy in Kurdish-run northern Iraq.

"We said (in the memorandum of understanding) that we will cooperate against terrorist organisations, notably the PKK," Maliki said in Ankara. Turkey has threatened cross-border strikes at PKK bases in neighbouring northern Iraq if Baghdad and Washington fail to curb the rebels. The PKK has stepped up its attacks inside Turkey this year.

Ankara says the PKK, which has been fighting for self-rule in Turkey's mainly Kurdish southeast since 1984, enjoys free movement in northern Iraq, where it obtains weapons and explosives. afp

ehBeth wrote:

http://www.defenselink.mil/news/casualty.pdf

4097

Operation Iraqi Freedom + Operation Enduring Freedom


~~~

Sorry, I didn't add all the numbers up together.

~~~

FROM YOUR LINK: US CASUALTIES

Total Deaths Operation Iraqi Freedom = ............................... 3688
Total Deaths Operation Enduring Freedom (Afghanistan) = .... 420
Total of Both = ....................................................................... 4108

Cyclo, Herein lies the problem: General Petraeus flys a helicoptor 150 feet above Baghdad, and see kids playing soccer, the markets are busy, and he says "there is progress." He fails to rely on the country's reports on all the Iraqis getting killed daily, the electricity avaiable for a couple of hours every day - if they're lucky, and no gasoline. One third of the children of Iraq are starving, but Petraeus fails to acknowledge all these problems to sound positive for Bush. They're all sick in the head.

...

ican711nm wrote:

I think the so-called insurgents (i.e., opposition to the Iraq government) want more electric power, and not more troops for a fight that gets them less electric power.

On the otherhand, I think al-Qaeda wants less electric power to attract more recruits for a fight that gets them more power to remain in Iraq.

I think you are 100% incorrect. There's no reason to believe that the insurgents would simply ignore the targets of opportunity that add followers to their cause. Why would they want more electric power, if it led people to support the current gov't, who they want to overthrow?

You are not ascribing rational actions to the insurgents, and that's stupid.

Cycloptichorn

Cycloptichorn wrote:

...

ican711nm wrote:

I think the so-called insurgents (i.e., opposition to the Iraq government) want more electric power, and not more troops for a fight that gets them less electric power.

On the otherhand, I think al-Qaeda wants less electric power to attract more recruits for a fight that gets them more power to remain in Iraq.

I think you are 100% incorrect. There's no reason to believe that the insurgents would simply ignore the targets of opportunity that add followers to their cause. Why would they want more electric power, if it led people to support the current gov't, who they want to overthrow?

You are not ascribing rational actions to the insurgents, and that's stupid.

Cycloptichorn

You are not ascribing rational actions to most of the people in Baghdad, and that is truly stupid.

I think most of the people in Baghdad want their infrastructure restored more than they want to overthrow the Iraq government. They are actually helping and not hindering the surge for that reason by reporting the locations of those people in Baghdad who are trying to overthrow the Iraq government.

ican711nm wrote:

Cycloptichorn wrote:

...

ican711nm wrote:

I think the so-called insurgents (i.e., opposition to the Iraq government) want more electric power, and not more troops for a fight that gets them less electric power.

On the otherhand, I think al-Qaeda wants less electric power to attract more recruits for a fight that gets them more power to remain in Iraq.

I think you are 100% incorrect. There's no reason to believe that the insurgents would simply ignore the targets of opportunity that add followers to their cause. Why would they want more electric power, if it led people to support the current gov't, who they want to overthrow?

You are not ascribing rational actions to the insurgents, and that's stupid.

Cycloptichorn

You are not ascribing rational actions to most of the people in Baghdad, and that is truly stupid.

I think most of the people in Baghdad want their infrastructure restored more than they want to overthrow the Iraq government. They are actually helping and not hindering the surge, for that among other reasons, by reporting the locations of those people in Baghdad who are trying to overthrow the Iraq government.

I didn't say anything about 'most people in Baghdad.' You did.

If the citizens of Baghdad and other parts of Iraq go long enough without power and water, they will revolt. This is what the insurgents want. It makes no sense for you to suggest that they would not take actions to make this happen.

Cycloptichorn

ican711nm wrote:

ehBeth wrote:

http://www.defenselink.mil/news/casualty.pdf

4097

Operation Iraqi Freedom + Operation Enduring Freedom


~~~

Sorry, I didn't add all the numbers up together.

~~~

FROM YOUR LINK: US CASUALTIES

Total Deaths Operation Iraqi Freedom = ............................... 3688
Total Deaths Operation Enduring Freedom (Afghanistan) = .... 420
Total of Both = ....................................................................... 4108

Don't forget to add a thousand or so casualties amongst our mercenary corps, aka, the Contractors.

Cycloptichorn

Cycloptichorn wrote:

ican711nm wrote:

Cycloptichorn wrote:

...

ican711nm wrote:

I think the so-called insurgents (i.e., opposition to the Iraq government) want more electric power, and not more troops for a fight that gets them less electric power.

On the otherhand, I think al-Qaeda wants less electric power to attract more recruits for a fight that gets them more power to remain in Iraq.

I think you are 100% incorrect. There's no reason to believe that the insurgents would simply ignore the targets of opportunity that add followers to their cause. Why would they want more electric power, if it led people to support the current gov't, who they want to overthrow?

You are not ascribing rational actions to the insurgents, and that's stupid.

Cycloptichorn

You are not ascribing rational actions to most of the people in Baghdad, and that is truly stupid.

I think most of the people in Baghdad want their infrastructure restored more than they want to overthrow the Iraq government. They are actually helping and not hindering the surge, for that among other reasons, by reporting the locations of those people in Baghdad who are trying to overthrow the Iraq government.

I didn't say anything about 'most people in Baghdad.' You did.

If the citizens of Baghdad and other parts of Iraq go long enough without power and water, they will revolt. This is what the insurgents want. It makes no sense for you to suggest that they would not take actions to make this happen.

Cycloptichorn

No they are and will continue to help stop those crippling their infrastructure. They are not the nuts you think they are.

ican711nm wrote:

Cycloptichorn wrote:

ican711nm wrote:

Cycloptichorn wrote:

...

ican711nm wrote:

I think the so-called insurgents (i.e., opposition to the Iraq government) want more electric power, and not more troops for a fight that gets them less electric power.

On the otherhand, I think al-Qaeda wants less electric power to attract more recruits for a fight that gets them more power to remain in Iraq.

I think you are 100% incorrect. There's no reason to believe that the insurgents would simply ignore the targets of opportunity that add followers to their cause. Why would they want more electric power, if it led people to support the current gov't, who they want to overthrow?

You are not ascribing rational actions to the insurgents, and that's stupid.

Cycloptichorn

You are not ascribing rational actions to most of the people in Baghdad, and that is truly stupid.

I think most of the people in Baghdad want their infrastructure restored more than they want to overthrow the Iraq government. They are actually helping and not hindering the surge, for that among other reasons, by reporting the locations of those people in Baghdad who are trying to overthrow the Iraq government.

I didn't say anything about 'most people in Baghdad.' You did.

If the citizens of Baghdad and other parts of Iraq go long enough without power and water, they will revolt. This is what the insurgents want. It makes no sense for you to suggest that they would not take actions to make this happen.

Cycloptichorn

No they are and will continue to help stop those crippling their infrastructure. They are not the nuts you think they are.

And yet, you avoid the real-world evidence that they either:

A, are not in fact helping to any great degree, or

B, their help is having no effect.

I can say this with confidence as Baghdad is currently experiencing the lowest levels of power and water since the war began.

It isn't that I think the Iraqi people are 'nuts,' but I don't think that most of them like the gov't very much, and I'm sure they do get pissed when there is no water in the pipes and no power in the lines. Get pissed long enough, bad things happen. This is the strategy of the insurgents. It was you who posted that this was not, in fact, the strategy of the insurgents at all. That's ridiculous.

Cycloptichorn

Cycloptichorn wrote:

ican711nm wrote:

Cycloptichorn wrote:

ican711nm wrote:

Cycloptichorn wrote:

...

ican711nm wrote:

I think the so-called insurgents (i.e., opposition to the Iraq government) want more electric power, and not more troops for a fight that gets them less electric power.

On the otherhand, I think al-Qaeda wants less electric power to attract more recruits for a fight that gets them more power to remain in Iraq.

I think you are 100% incorrect. There's no reason to believe that the insurgents would simply ignore the targets of opportunity that add followers to their cause. Why would they want more electric power, if it led people to support the current gov't, who they want to overthrow?

You are not ascribing rational actions to the insurgents, and that's stupid.

Cycloptichorn

You are not ascribing rational actions to most of the people in Baghdad, and that is truly stupid.

I think most of the people in Baghdad want their infrastructure restored more than they want to overthrow the Iraq government. They are actually helping and not hindering the surge, for that among other reasons, by reporting the locations of those people in Baghdad who are trying to overthrow the Iraq government.

I didn't say anything about 'most people in Baghdad.' You did.

If the citizens of Baghdad and other parts of Iraq go long enough without power and water, they will revolt. This is what the insurgents want. It makes no sense for you to suggest that they would not take actions to make this happen.

Cycloptichorn

No they are and will continue to help stop those crippling their infrastructure. They are not the nuts you think they are.

And yet, you avoid the real-world evidence that they either:

A, are not in fact helping to any great degree, or

B, their help is having no effect.

I can say this with confidence as Baghdad is currently experiencing the lowest levels of power and water since the war began.

It isn't that I think the Iraqi people are 'nuts,' but I don't think that most of them like the gov't very much, and I'm sure they do get pissed when there is no water in the pipes and no power in the lines. Get pissed long enough, bad things happen. This is the strategy of the insurgents. It was you who posted that this was not, in fact, the strategy of the insurgents at all. That's ridiculous.

Cycloptichorn

It's me who said the people crippling the Iraq infrastructure were al-Qaeda and not the insurgents.

ican711nm wrote:

...
It's me who said the people crippling the Iraq infrastructure were al-Qaeda and not the insurgents.

You have neither evidence nor logic showing this is true. Only supposition.

Cycloptichorn

dys, The key word here is "progress." That way, they are able to purposely ignore all the negatives.


Some Americans think there is "progress" in Iraq; that's the reason Bush's approval rating is going up. Some Americans are pretty dumb.

Today's progress: 175 Iraqis killed, and 200 injured. Five soldiers killed. Over thirty percent of Iraqi children are starving. Most are living with less than two hours of electricity. If that's progress, I want no part of it.

cicerone imposter wrote:

Today's progress: 175 Iraqis killed, and 200 injured. Five soldiers killed. Over thirty percent of Iraqi children are starving. Most are living with less than two hours of electricity. If that's progress, I want no part of it.

Regardless, we must find a way to make progress in Iraq. The consequences of failure to eventually make progress in Iraq would be intolerable.

In my opinion, the reason Bush's approval rating is going up, is because by contrast the Democrats are being increasingly perceived as far more incompetent than is Bush and his administration.