Posted on 10/19/2003 9:38:11 AM PDT by RJCogburn
FALLUJAH, Iraq - Two U.S. soldiers were killed and one was wounded in an ambush north of Baghdad, the military said, and insurgents attacked a convoy Sunday in this turbulent city west of the capital, setting off huge explosions in several vehicles.
In a third incident, three apparent Iraqi attackers were also reported killed.
The U.S. command reported no American casualties in the Sunday morning attack against what appeared to be an ammunition truck and two other American vehicles in Fallujah, 35 miles west of Baghdad in the "Sunni Triangle."
Dozens of Iraqi youths cheered and danced in celebration as contents of the flaming vehicles continued to explode. The crowds scattered when two F-16 jets passed overhead.
Witnesses said U.S. troops tried to approach the truck but withdrew after they came under attack with rocket-propelled grenades.
"I was fixing my car on the other side of the street, and Americans fired in a circular motion as they attempted to leave the area," 30-year-old Thaer Ibrahim said.
At least five Iraqis were wounded when the Americans fired to cover their withdrawal, said Dr. Bassem al-Abdali of the Fallujah General Hospital.
U.S. troops and Iraqi police kept journalists away from the scene, but from a distance it appeared that the vehicles, which included a Humvee, were ablaze.
There were conflicting reports whether the attack in the eastern end of the city was triggered by a roadside bomb or by rocket-propelled grenades.
"Shells were flying everywhere, like fireworks," said Khalil al-Qubaisi, 45, a nearby shopkeeper.
In the northern attack, an American mounted patrol was ambushed by rocket-propelled grenades and small arms fire at 10:45 p.m. Saturday outside the northern city of Kirkuk, 159 miles north of Baghdad, said Maj. Josslyn Aberle, spokeswoman for the 4th Infantry Division.
The patrol from Task Force Ironhorse — a force that includes the 4th Division — returned fire, but no additional enemy contact followed, Aberle said.
In other action in the north early Sunday, U.S. troops were attacked by grenades and small arms and returned fire, killing three Iraqis near Hawija, 150 miles north of Baghdad, the 4th Infantry Division reported.
Other American forces detained five attackers north of Beiji, 120 miles north of Baghdad, after a brief firefight.
Resistance forces have mounted an average of 22 attacks a day on the U.S. occupation forces in Iraq (news - web sites) in recent weeks, mostly in the so-called "Sunni Triangle," a Sunni Muslim-dominated area stretching from the west of Baghdad to the north. The area was a strong base of support for Saddam's Baath Party regime toppled by the U.S.-British invasion earlier this year.
Saturday's deaths came barely a day after four American soldiers were killed in a roadside explosion in Baghdad and a clash with Shiite Muslim gunmen in the southern shrine city of Karbala, on the deadliest day for the occupation force in a month.
If so, have we just become conditioned to the recurrent death of brave Americans there?
This is the price we will pay.....we can not have another morning when we lost 3,000 in our streets.
Its called fire & manuever.
"Shells were flying everywhere, like fireworks," said Khalil al-Qubaisi, 45, a nearby shopkeeper."
Its called...'The sound of warfare'
"Dozens of Iraqi youths cheered and danced in celebration as contents of the flaming vehicles continued to explode."
These are called potential combatants. They must be dealt with ASAP.
I'm not sure what is gained by asking questions such as this, but the answer is "no." If you have been following these threads, you already know the answer. The responses to the threads do seem to be more limited, but that is human nature in a protracted operation; many posts now devolve into accusations about the intent of the poster, some of the criticism being justified, IMHO. Apart from what I would consider basic informative posting, we also have something akin to a "death watch" kept alive by some of FR's reliable ghouls- some of whom screech their cries of censorship when questioned about their eagerness to make sure that every attack is not only documented for us all to see, but analyzed with a superficiality and politically motivated coarseness that is unbecoming in the extreme.
I don't want sunshine blown up my ass, but I don't have any need for people to get on a thread relating to soldiers' deaths only to gloat about their supposed prescience and hear them spin their fine theories about constitutionality and geopolitics.
As the father of someone over there, I try to stay up on what is going on, and have no need for someone on FR to post any of it. Generally, I don't feel the need to comment or bump on most of them, because I have to adapt to enough unpleasant thoughts for a good part of each day. Am I becoming conditioned to accept losses?
No. And I have also not become conditioned to accepting continual efforts to further encourage attacks on our forces, or the ill-concealed smugness with which some people report casualties.
I don't know if anything is 'gained' either. But I still wondered...are we becoming conditioned because obviously the last death is as tragic as the first.
My best wishes for the safety of your child.
I have always assumed, as I'm sure did many Americans, that the war in Iraq was a direct reaction to 9/11, even though GW didn't really make that clear. But the recurring deaths of our soldiers there has definitely got most Americans questioning his wisdom in going in.
However, there is no doubt that Saddam is a monster, and really no doubt that his remaining in power was a major threat to world peace. As chaotic as the Middle East is now, and as much as that region threatens world peace, just imagine it with Saddam waving around nukes.
I don't think we should only have removed him under the premise that we could have done it relatively easily, I think we probably had no choice but to do so, no matter the cost. Because it's likely that the world could not have afforded the cost of leaving the guy there.
Do you mean support for the war in Iraq? I'm assuming that the support for the war on terror is more like 100%. By using the description "absolute maximum," are you implying that it is really somewhat less?
Perhaps I am wrong, but I do have a gut feeling that GW is in a little trouble with the voters re Iraq.
It may be somewhat peripheral to the point, but if any of these 43% can still be "loyal Democrats" after what Howard Dean said in Dearborn, then they are truly what you say: unreachable.
Although far from being a warmonger, the toppling of Saddam Hussein was long overdue, not only to destroy his relentless programs to develop biological weapons, nerve gas and nukes, but also in order to lance the terrorist-supporting boil that was enveloping much of the Middle East.
Is the US just supposed to ignore countries that offer safe haven, weapons and money to terrorist groups, such as Saddam Hussein had been doing for the past 12 years.
Yes, there are other countries engaging in similar behavior, and I am sure that someone, either Pres. Bush or a future US president, will have to deal with that situation.
Been wondering the same thing myself. Though I emphatically agree that the war in Iraq is *part* of the war on terror.
I think I made it clear that my thoughts are the same in post #11. I just wish GW would make it clear that his thoughts are the same, because the media are doing a good job on playing up the negatives. And GW can be in a little hot water with the voters, even though he is doing what is right.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.