U.S. Says Remains of Two Missing Soldiers Found
This is all becoming so bloody.
What a quagmire...
U.S. Death Toll in Iraq Passes 200](Yahoo News: Latest and Breaking News, Headlines, Live Updates, and More)
So much lives being lost, and for such a futile conflict…
OPSEC at its best…
Bush to millitants: “There are some who feel like that conditions are such that they can attack us there,” Bush told reporters at the White House. “My answer is: Bring them on. We have the force necessary to deal with the situation.”
With over 70 dead since May 1 2003, this is his reply to the millitants. Well its very comfortable sitting in the oval office, thousands of miles away from the battle field to come up with this crap. Even when his troops had completed the occupation of Baghda, bush dint have the courage to step into that country. Taking a quick tour at 31000 feet escorted by four F-18’s just speaks volumes about this idiot.
there is no room for a fear of a guerilla war in iraq or a vietnam like situation since Arabs do not have the courage and manipulation power to create a vienam like situation or engage in a constant unbated guerilla attacks on the U.S troops.
The American invasion in vietnam started of with the Tonkin incident,when a U.S ship was allegedly attacked by the North vietnamese gun boats near the Tonkin bay in vietnam.the vietnamese people hadbeen engaged in a decade long conflict with french and south vietnamese and had all their resources making up for their game.they had all preparations,in full swing and fully settled,with underground tunnels ,some even passing through under the U.S army base camps.
vietnamese dense jungles proven to be a nightmare for the U.S troops and the Viet congs(ipso factos)policy was a hit and disappear in to the dense jungles.since the U.S troops,at that time did not have the experience in fighting in dense jungles found it hard and almost impossible to face the enemy.so in an attempt to flsuh out the enemies,they started dropping bombs over jungles which proved less effective,at the same time viet congs unleashed a great deluge of attacks over the U.S troops,tearing away the confidence and morality of the u.s troops
in iraq ,the similar conditions can not be found and a desert like condition is well familiar to the already stationed U.S troops in that region.i think the present attacks are a sign of frustration from the remnants of saddams loyals and will cease soon.
A few of the latest incidents…
Briton killed in Iraq, BBC, 6 July 2003
US soldier shot in Baghdad, BBC, 6 July 2003
Blast outside Iraqi police station, BBC, 5 July 2003
More and more American soldiers are now being killed daily…
Attacks Kill 3 U.S. Soldiers in Baghdad](Yahoo News: Latest and Breaking News, Headlines, Live Updates, and More)
Quite fierce attacks for the US to now offer rewards to catch those attacking US soldiers…
Iraq Attacks Wound Seven U.S. Soldiers](Yahoo News: Latest and Breaking News, Headlines, Live Updates, and More)
U.S. Toll in Iraq Nears '91 War Deaths](Yahoo News: Latest and Breaking News, Headlines, Live Updates, and More)
Iraq costing U.S. $4 billion a month
The Iraqi misadventure is costing the invaders dearly. May the cost continue to rise and may they stay there for a long time.
Iraq costing U.S. $4 billion a month](http://www.msnbc.com/news/936819.asp)
Costs to continue longer due to ongoing attacks, reports say
WASHINGTON, July 10 — The Pentagon is spending nearly $4 billion a month in Iraq, a “burn rate” that is likely to continue far longer than the Bush administration intended due to ongoing attacks on U.S. forces, according to private and government cost projections.
PENTAGON OFFICIALS have avoided divulging the size of the force they anticipated for Iraqi occupation and reconstruction, but a Defense Department report sent to Congress last week conceded that demobilization has not been as rapid as planned. Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld told the Senate Armed Services Committee that the monthly cost of operations in Iraq is roughly $3.9 billion.
The military has already had to shift about $3.6 billion from an Iraq contingency fund and other military accounts to cover unanticipated costs, according to the report. And the current force in Iraq — about 150,000 troops — will likely remain in the region into the next fiscal year, which begins in October, the report said. Before the war, Defense Department officials hinted that the peacekeeping force would be 40,000 to 60,000 troops.
“The presumption was always that the burn rate would decline rapidly,” said Loren B. Thompson, a defense analyst at the conservative Lexington Institute. “It’s pretty obvious now that the peacekeeping function substantially exceeds what was anticipated.”
Pentagon officials and defense analysts in Congress say the $62.6 billion emergency spending bill that Congress passed just after the war began should cover war costs through the end of this fiscal year. But the messy aftermath — with its guerrilla-like attacks, looting and sluggish rebuilding efforts — threatens to drain the Treasury well into next year and beyond.
The $3.9 billion monthly spending rate is nearly double the rate anticipated for longer-term peacekeeping operations, a House Appropriations Committee aide said. Indeed, signs of strain are already beginning to show, according to Defense Department documents.
In its most detailed assessment of the cost of the war, the Pentagon said it has already incurred $900 million in unanticipated personnel costs and about $4.1 billion in weapons depot maintenance costs that are “beyond the scope of the … programs to absorb.” An additional $612 million in family separation allowances and imminent danger pay demanded by Congress will also have to be covered by shifting funds from other accounts.
The military hopes to spend $232 million to replace Air Force transport equipment, $217 million to buy new Tomahawk cruise missiles, $638 million on munitions, $389 million to convert Chinook helicopters for special operations, and $109 million to upgrade Army combat missile systems. And those are only the preliminary assessments of equipment loss, the report cautioned.
NO MONEY FOR IRAQ OPERATIONS
The House this week approved a $369 billion defense spending bill that includes no money for military operations in Iraq, a move that “is very hard to understand or explain,” said Thomas Kahn, the Democratic staff director of the House Budget Committee.
Defense Department officials remained sanguine about the long-term issues. The report to Congress continued to predict that “only a limited number of U.S. forces will remain” in Iraq by fall 2004.
Vietnam, all over again...
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Malik73: *
Vietnam, all over again...
[/QUOTE]
Very true.
you forget that we'll be paid back in black gold... none of that in Vietnam, hence no reason to stay
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Stu: *
you forget that we'll be paid back in black gold... none of that in Vietnam, hence no reason to stay
[/QUOTE]
Hello Stu, how's it going? Still living in denial I see. :)
If you had no reason to stay in Vietnam, then one wonders why you stayed for 11 very long years? After all it cost the lives of 58,000 plus American soldiers...one would think you would have got out much, much earlier? As chosen1 said I hope your stay in Iraq is as long as well. :)
I'm doing just fine Malik, thanks for asking, but I actually live in California. Denial is in the middle east, the very same place where america will have a presence for a very, very long time.
it was before my time, but it's clear to me that vietnam was part of a chess game w/China and Russia. In case you didn't see the outcome of that game, we won. Our record is better than Gary Kasparov's.
[QUOTE]
Originally posted by Stu:
In case you didn't see the outcome of that game, we won.
[/QUOTE]
Did you win the Vietnam war? I think one side suffered in that war suffered the greatest defeat in it's history, that still haunts it to this very day...care to tell us who? :)
Oh, boy! Another thread diverted to Vietnam. Anyone want to mention Nagasaki or the Native American Massacre?
why are you embarrassed about the great American achievements? OK let’s not mention all the above. How about the brave deeds and subsequent rescue of private Lynch, the joke butt of every party now a days. 
Any more heroics?
My head is actually spinning :rotato: trying to keep up with all the different conflicts that have been predicted to become America’s next Vietnam by some Guppies. I don’t think any of the prognosticators actually lived through or experienced the Vietnam era though. I’m not sure they understand that the Vietnam psychosis infecting the American public and government leaders was put to its final rest sometime during the Reagan years. Vietnam involved a different time, a different place and different peoples (both at home and our adversary) all unique unto themselves.
Those of us who are children of the 50s and 60s and lived through the Vietnam era realize just how silly these comparisons truly are.
I think you should tell Hollywood producers to stop making films about Vietnam…ooops they are now making films about Somalia.
"I think one side suffered in that war suffered the greatest defeat in it's history, that still haunts it to this very day...care to tell us who?"
The US defeated the communists through economic and military superiority. Are you debating that Malik?