14 U.S. troops killed in Iraq in 48 hours

CNN ^ | CNN

[ruschpa]

BAGHDAD, Iraq (CNN) -- Fourteen U.S. troops have been killed in attacks over the past two days in Iraq -- 12 soldiers and two Marines -- according to the U.S. military.

In the deadliest attack, a roadside bomb struck a military vehicle on Thursday in northeastern Baghdad, killing five U.S. soldiers, three Iraqi civilians and an Iraqi interpreter.

A U.S. soldier and two civilians were wounded.

[pissant]

Great pics, Kat.

[4yearlurker]

If he believed all the crap he was typing he is in every sense of the word a FOOL!

[TomasUSMC]

so it’s no suprise that casualties are up.

---

The proper offensive does not mandate higher casualties. Especially when you have superior technology and greater forces.

This is a poorly conceived military strategy of Bush’s KGC warfighting. Kinder Gentler Compassionate doesn’t work in war. Again Bush is making our troops go house to house when the entire city could be leveled with NO casualties on our side. Unbelievable. Worse than Nam.

At least in Nam we bombed the enemy sanctuaries.

[Eagle of Liberty]

And become like others who can’t learn from history?

Please point me to the history lesson that I should be learning.

[pissant]

We did plenty of house to house fighting in WWII in many places.

[livius]

That’s true. It’s a serious problem, and I don’t think we know how to deal with it. The message of hate isn’t part of our culture, and it’s hard for us to understand how anybody could think that way. Even when there are terrorist groups that have various objectives that they try to achieve by terrorizing the civilian population (ETA, IRA), this is not a culturally accepted thing and ultimately is what leads to their rejection. But not in the Middle East.

[Eagle of Liberty]

I'd like to see you standing outside the gates of, let's say, Ft. Stewart when an Infantry Battalion of the 3rd ID is coming home after 15 months in combat.

I think that they would agree with me. Carnage is synonymous with being slaughtered. I would NOT, nor would they, say that our troops have been slaughtered in ANY battle. This is just another scare tactic word to get weak-kneed Americans to run to the hills. From what I have heard, the only thing that has irritated them is the fact that the ROE have gotten more strict and have handcuffed their actions.

[hunter112]

Again Bush is making our troops go house to house when the entire city could be leveled with NO casualties on our side. Unbelievable. Worse than Nam.

You're exactly right. If we can't fight this thing like a real war, then we should get the hell out, and let them destroy each other. The world needs to be depopulated by about a billion muzzies, and if they're willing to do most of the dirty work themselves, then let them do it.

If it's good enough for Hamas and Fatah, then it's good enough for Shiite and Sunni.

[TomasUSMC]

We didn’t have bombs powerful enough to destroy cities until after Germany was defeated. There was no house to house fighting at all in Japan.

Some house to house will always be necessary, but it should not be done instead of other methods that are better and cause less casualties to our troops.

[pissant]

We have easily 80% of the Iraq population on our side or neutral. That would make no sense. Even most of the tribes who hate us are siding with us to root out al quaeda

[pissant]

BTW, we did a good job of destroying several kraut cities, including Dresden.

[leadpenny]

I would NOT, nor would they, say that our troops have been slaughtered in ANY battle.

Where'd you serve to have gained such expertise?

You speak for our troops who have seen first hand the effects of IEDs? Carnage - slaughtered. You quibble.

Again, I wouldn stand outside the gate with that sign.

[jveritas]

The Saudi Arabian government is still our ally in the war on terror despite all the rhetoric. Yes most of the Saudi people are against us however if the Saudi Arabian government is gone then we will have Al Qaeda controlling Saudi Arabia and its hundred of billions of oil dollars to cause us horrors that we cannot even imagine.

[jveritas]

100% correct SW. I cannot believe how so many people do not understand this simple fact.

[jveritas]

Incredible, just incredible. The defeatist brigade on FR is now louder than ever.

[pissant]

It’s an interesting mix between the Savage warriors (”make it a glass parking lot or get out”) and lib anti-war trolls posing as conservatives.

[DreamsofPolycarp]

That was a GREAT post!

[jveritas]

Exactly.

There are two types of defeatists:

The first one speaks openly in your face “let us surrender we cannot win”, and those are basically the left wing liberals.

The second one are the “macho defeatists”. Those are the one who do not want to fight because the fight is hard and bloody and they camouflage their defeatism with macho statements like “nuke them all, turn the place into a glass parking lot and let us leave”. Those are the Pat Buchanin and Michael Savage crowds and other assortments of knee jerk conservatives and libertarians.

The question that I would like to ask the second the “macho defeatists” is if there are 50 thousands terrorists distributed among 20 cities and the total number of people in the 20 cities is over 10 millions will you nuke 10 million people including millions of women, children and elderly because of 50 thousands terrorists?

[pissant]

You forgot about the armchair generals, that know a quagmire when they see one. In fact they read about it in the NY times.

[PigRigger]

You didn't address the question...

To myself, and many others, that is this debate is all about...it is not the past, not about how we got where we are today...it's about the present and the future...

I think all of us can agree that we wish the best for this nation; where we disagree is how that will be accomplished given the current situation.

I'm not being facetious, I really am interested in what you have to say given your statements.....and considering the most likely outcome of us leaving NOW would translate to an Iran and/or Al-Queda proxy....

So again I ask, “Please explain to us simple folk how an Iran and/or Al-Queda controlled Iraq serves our nations best interests both now and in the future? ”