U.S. Convoy Attacked; GIs Die in Ambush

Yahoo News ^ | 10/19/03 | TAREK AL-ISSAWI

[RJCogburn]

Is my impression correct that this sort of story was for a time posted nearly daily on FR, but that even though such tragedy continues, the story is less often posted?

If so, have we just become conditioned to the recurrent death of brave Americans there?

[Dog]

RJ...Every death of a US soldier needs to be mourned.....but this is going to be a long struggle against terror.

This is the price we will pay.....we can not have another morning when we lost 3,000 in our streets.

[MarkeyD]

I'm sure we are all keenly aware of each death in Iraq, whether they are posted here or not.

[moodyskeptic]

Here's a thought: shoot "teens who celebrate US soldiers deaths". Some Iraqis apparently need help evaluating their own self interests.

[Gringo1]

I say napalm any crowd that gathers to "celebrate" American deaths.

I bet the situation would calm down real quick.

[Khurkris]

""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."

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.

[niteowl77]

Is my impression correct that this sort of story was for a time posted nearly daily on FR, but that even though such tragedy continues, the story is less often posted?

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.

[oceanview]

it seems as if attacks have increased in the last two weeks. i hope centcom has some plans for some big raids, because unless you are on offense, our guys are just targets.

[oceanview]

I would. I would order a sniper just take one of them out during the celebration. no mass attack on them, just let the others see one of their buddies heads explode during the celebration.

[RJCogburn]

I'm not sure what is gained by asking questions such as this

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.

[Sam Cree]

"This is the price we will pay.....we can not have another morning when we lost 3,000 in our streets."

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.

[oceanview]

"most americans"? no, just the dems. the absolute maximum support level for the war on terror is 57%, the Dem base is totally lost on this issue, they suck up what their media tells them, they hate Bush, and that's it. some folks here might criticize the situation from time to time (as on this thread), but that does not mean they don't support it, we just wish things like these deaths could be lessened or stopped.

[VOA]

Is my impression correct that this sort of story was for a time posted nearly daily on FR,
but that even though such tragedy continues, the story is less often posted?

Maybe it's just me, but it seems that every day I log in, there is usually a
thread about any current loss of life.

Although I wish the number of casulties was ZERO, I was suprised to hear the other
day that the number of casulties since the end of major operations had just then passed 100.

I was a bit suprised because all the media coverage had me thinnking the number
was surely up to 250 or higher by now.

And if there's a place that won't get desensitized to these problems, it's freerepublic.

[Sam Cree]

"the absolute maximum support level for the war on terror is 57%"

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.

[oceanview]

the war in iraq is the war on terror, if it isn't, then where are we fighting the war on terror? at the UN security council?

all I am saying is that if the Dem base makes up 43% of the electorate, we can forget about getting support from those people for this effort. Just forget it, they are beyond hope, they cannot be reached. Let's just do the best job possible and go forward with the segment of the people that support it, rather then wringing our hands over those don't.

[niteowl77]

all I am saying is that if the Dem base makes up 43% of the electorate, we can forget about getting support from those people for this effort. Just forget it, they are beyond hope, they cannot be reached.

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.

[Edit35]

Perhaps I am wrong, but I do have a gut feeling that GW is in a little trouble with the voters re Iraq.

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.

[Sam Cree]

"the war in iraq is the war on terror, if it isn't, then where are we fighting the war on terror?"

Been wondering the same thing myself. Though I emphatically agree that the war in Iraq is *part* of the war on terror.

[Sam Cree]

"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."

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.

[oceanview]

all you have to do is listen to Mark Shields on PBS with Lehrer at night. He, and the rest of them, are truly beyond reach. Its incredible to listen to them. Mind you, rational dissent is normal, that's fine. But when dissent turns into having what is essentially an alternate reality, a fantasy world if you will, then forget it. He just kept repeating himself, "iraq is a dismal failure", over and over. As if NOTHING good had been accomplished. If you showed him a video tape of iraqi children in a classroom, he would tell you it wasn't real.