U.S. Troops Killed in Iraq

Society Pakistan & World Affairs
1

Three U.S. Troops Killed in Iraq

By MARIAM FAM, Associated Press Writer

MOSUL, Iraq - Gunmen killed two American soldiers driving through this northern Iraqi city Sunday, and then a crowd swarmed the scene, looting the soldiers’ vehicle and pummeling their bodies, witnesses said. Another soldier was killed in a roadside bombing north of Baghdad.

Elsewhere, three American civilian contractors were wounded in an explosion in the northern oil center of Kirkuk. First reports said the blast was from a mortar, but U.S. Lt. Col. Matt Croke said officials later concluded it was from a bomb.

The 101st Airborne Division said its soldiers in Mosul were shot while driving between U.S. garrisons. Several witnesses also said the soldiers were shot during the attack in the Ras al-Jadda district, though earlier reports by witnesses said assailants slit the soldiers’ throats.

Bahaa Jassim, a teenager, said the soldiers’ vehicle crashed into a wall after the shooting. Several dozen passers-by then descended on the wreckage, looting the car of weapons and the soldiers’ backpacks.

After the soldiers’ bodies fell into the street, the crowd pummeled them with concrete blocks, Jassim said.

A U.S. patrol then arrived and cordoned off the area, he said.

Details

Things don’t look nice at all, its not just “terrorists” killing or attacking US troops. When the soldiers vehicle crashed, crowd gathered and pummeled the bodies, now that shows how much US troops are welcome. Is somebody in military taking notes of all that? I hope they take it as an indication of “not wanted at all” and stop further deaths of their troops.

2

Re: Three U.S. Troops Killed in Iraq

[QUOTE]
Originally posted by Changez_like: *
*

Disgusting animale like behavior.**

3

Re: Re: Three U.S. Troops Killed in Iraq

[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by underthedome: *
Disgusting animale like behavior.
[/QUOTE]

Right, I hope that opens up military eyes that public really does not want to see US military. Better hurry up for UN than see more troops pummelled.

4

Re: Re: Three U.S. Troops Killed in Iraq

[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by underthedome: *

Disgusting animale like behavior.
[/QUOTE]

Would it have been different if the crowd had used high-tech weapons instead?

They used what they had at hand...In this case bricks...The American forces use daisy cutters, cruise missiles and bunker busters...That's not even animalistic...That's just sadistic as not even animals would resort to that...That's disgusting...

5

Helicopter shot in Afghanistan 5 terrorist killed, Oil pipe line blown in Iraq, terrorist find hard to steal oil.

6

A total of 6 US soldiers were killed on Sunday - three in attacks by Iraqi resistance fighters, and another two were killed in a traffic accident in Baghdad, and another one drowned when his vehicle slid off the road and went into an adjacent canal near Balad.

The total number of US soldiers killed in November alone is now a record 74, plus another 21 "coalition" soldiers have been killed - this has been the bloodiest month since the war was launched in March.

7

My predictions are:-
The freedom struggle will escalate as elections approach in US. The terrorist will lose this war and the elections and the freedom struggle will expand in the Middle East, UAE most likely will be the next target as that will be the last likely terrorist base after the terrorist were/are kicked out of Saudi and Iraq. The idea is to drive American and British out of these lands and to achieve that the freedom fighters have learnt that targeting economic assets lead to greater damage the roots of reasons for occupation i.e. economy aka OIL or (Operation Iraq Liberation) The costs will multiply in terms of life and dollars and the profits will take a nose dive businesses move out or destroyed so will the terrorists.

Please note US and Brit will move out with a spin like in Vietnam or NK.
Next target: North Korea!!
Mission: To retrieve USS Pueblo!! :D

8

the question is that whether US forces are facinf resistance from one group or various, which may or may not be coordinated.

1) al kayda sympathisers who look at this as an opportune time to turn iraq into afghanistan after the soviet war.
2) saddam loyalists who allowed the forces to come in so they can continue a gorrila war instead
3) resistance groups among civilians who did not want saddam and do not want US.

what do u think?

9

[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Fraudz: *
the question is that whether US forces are facinf resistance from one group or various, which may or may not be coordinated.

1) al kayda sympathisers who look at this as an opportune time to turn iraq into afghanistan after the soviet war.
2) saddam loyalists who allowed the forces to come in so they can continue a gorrila war instead
3) resistance groups among civilians who did not want saddam and do not want US.

what do u think?
[/QUOTE]

I think it is a combination of 2 and 3, rather than an Al Qaida connection considering how much OBL and his lot detested Saddam and his very secular Baathist regime. In reality the American's have not done themselves any favors since they occupied Iraq, especially when they abolished the 2.5 million strong Baathist party, and deprived these people of the favours, state patronage and in many cases jobs they had enjoyed as members of the party. This automatically alienated a huge section of the population (some 10%), and made them determined opponents of the American occupation. The greatest blunder was the disbandment of the half million or so Iraqi army, leaving them jobless but still with many of their arms.

10

A few days back, I heard on NPR about a report which mentioned that there were a very small number of foreigners, the number is considerably smaller than originally thought, so chances of "al-caieda" are very small. I think its more of 3rd than 2nd option because of US mishandling civilians and US's disapproval of "Shia" idea of "theocracy".

11

Malik

I do nto think that the OBl clan would link up with the baathists, but I think they can try to take advantage of the situation, after all where else in the middle east can they operate or have chances to get in power other than in Iraq right now.

I would hazard a guess that if US leaves right now there is going to be massibe infighting a la afghanistan post soviet war between different ethnic and sectarian groups as well as baathists.

12

[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Fraudz: *
the question is that whether US forces are facinf resistance from one group or various, which may or may not be coordinated.

1) al kayda sympathisers who look at this as an opportune time to turn iraq into afghanistan after the soviet war.
2) saddam loyalists who allowed the forces to come in so they can continue a gorrila war instead
3) resistance groups among civilians who did not want saddam and do not want US.

what do u think?
[/QUOTE]

I think it's a combination of all three. I suspect there is not much coordination between the three. Those falling into group 3 would more likely be Shias who would have a hard time justifying working with the Saddam loyalists who butchered and repressed them for decades. I also believe that the failure of the US to quickly subdue groups 1 and 2 plays a big part in the turn to violent resistance from Group 3. "If you can't bring stability and security to Iraq, then what good are you" sort of attitude.

I also suspect that it is Groups 1 and 2 that are primarily responsible for the indiscriminate murder of civilians designed to cause chaos and fear among the populace. I wouldn't give Groups 1 and 2 the respect that the title of "resistance" implies. They are thugs and murderers. Members of Group 3 deserve this title.

More and more, it looks like the US missed the window of opportunity that Group 3 was willing to give to (1) deal effectively with Groups 1 and 2 and (2) convince Group 3 that power would be transferred expeditiously to a government meeting the expectations of Group 3.

13

MV as i read in some other thread, i think its still not too late. I am no military genius so cant say how it can be accomplished but people have to be convinced and it has to be made into a more multi-national effort. I think US pulling out right now is counter productive and the country may land up in worse hands than saddam's, or in the hands of one of his cronies.

I am outraged at the lack of effectiveness of the whole media and communication campaign which was being launched. An average Iraqi on the street is in the dark, and frankly any of the news sources, whether it is arabic stations or CNN, FOx or BBc dont help much because they are not giving information on what is pertinent to the average Iraqi on teh street. The negative sentiment could be credited to that.

This is still not a lost cause and does not have to continue this way, but there has to be some proactive planning on what is needed, what is expected, and try to balance the two. I think a big issue was not having a plan, it happened too easily too quickly and maybe we were not ready for that and got caught with no plan on what to do next.

Whats the solution, quicker moves towards autonomy and representative govts, with Us forces staying there to help bring stability to the new regime and phasing the work of protection to the new oraqi forces. Obviously the calls of some ppl that US forces need to be there for 5-10 years does not seem feasible. I would not wantto see the forces pull out tomorrow either, but think that a long time frame is just counter productive.

but heck if i knew world politics I would be at some think tank in DC

14

:ahaa: How about giving UN forces a try?

15

^ I may not have been clear but thats exactly what I had meant by

[QUOTE]
Originally posted by Fraudz: *
**it has to be made into a more multi-national effort. *
[/quote]

16

The current Admin. believes that the following order of hierarchy should be followed if success is to be had in Iraq

Military force ---> economy ---> Culture

That means that with a strong military presence security should be achieved which will be followed by the rebuilding of the economy which will give us a society/culture that accepts or at the very least tolerates a U.S. presence for a time being.

As we see this is not working.

Culture ---> economy ---> Military force

The U.S. needed/needs to establish a type of positive rapport with the Iraqi people on the street, give them assurances that they are not there to steal their oil. An Iraqi population would gladly help with the rebuilding and securing their country and the military presence could be modified from it's current form, which isn’t winning over many 'hearts and minds'.

17

UTD

That would have been the right approach a while back, although i think it is still the right solution, implementing it is going to be harder, because at that time the public sentiment going south had not started or had notgained much momentum, now considerable effort would have to be sepnt on slowing and then reversing that sentiment, we would have to undo the damage done and then redo how things should have been done, or really put a lot more effort into changing the trajectory of this arrow that has already been launched.

18

[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Fraudz: *
the question is that whether US forces are facinf resistance from one group or various, which may or may not be coordinated.

1) al kayda sympathisers who look at this as an opportune time to turn iraq into afghanistan after the soviet war.
2) saddam loyalists who allowed the forces to come in so they can continue a gorrila war instead
3) resistance groups among civilians who did not want saddam and do not want US.

what do u think?
[/QUOTE]

It is irrelevant as to how many groups and how are they organized as long as they have support of the masses. Make no mistake about it; no movement has ever succeeded without popular support of the locals. All this US screaming and crowing about AL-Qaeda and terrorist is pure horse sh!t a clear indication of frustration and failures. How the Iraqis welcomed them with open arms is no secret just like Iraq is loaded with WMD. The question should be how US will mask its humiliation in Afghanistan and Iraq? What spin will it give?

Simple, In Afghanistan it can claim its objectives were met by kicking out Talibs and in Iraq by getting rid of Saddam and killing his sons.

In Afghanistan, Talibs will be running the show they already are in certain areas. In Iraq there will be a civil war.

And little Kim will hand over USS Pueblo on a plate all US has to do is cross the 38th parallel.

I can list quite a few tall claims made by the monkey about NK, Afghanistan but when reality started biting quite a few objectives have changed since.

19

No one likes an Occupying Military Force, and the day this simple fact is accepted by the US decision-makers they will get out of their make-believe world that all those attacking the US are Saddam loyalists or foreign terrorists.

No matter how good your intentions may be, when you drop bombs on civilian populations, kill them mercilessly, destroy their homes, impose your hand-picked rulers on them, arrest their sons, brothers and father, treat the local populations with epitaph and suspicion, and in general try to teach them how to live their lives in their own country by way of guns, you should be prepared that the local population will rise up against you.

Initially, it may have been that some local population gave benefit of the doubt to the Americans. In those times, the myth of "sunni-triangle" and "Saddam loyalists" were repeatedly mentioned as if to suggest that the rest of Iraq is all thankful to the US and its just a few random instances in a limited area which target US troops. Apparently that story is shattered and no longer plausible. Plus the attackers have tasted blood. They know, if they keep up these attacks, US forces will be recalled quickly. It was always known that US has no stomach to accept deaths of its soldiers, especially in foreign countries on murky, unclear and often outright lies in the name of rationale for war.

Regardless of whether the attackers all across Iraq are coordinated or are even friendly to each other, they all seem to have one common mission. To kill Americans and to kick their butts (literally). Each of these groups may have different reasons why they are killing Americans, but unfortunately for Americans, it doesn't help those American soldiers who are in the wrong place now, and as its obvious, its certainly the wrong time.

20

Damn pumelling bodies with concrete blocks!

Thats is unislamic to bash the bodies after they dead, but it is clear one thing for sure the Iraqis can't stand the AMericans and at any given opportunity will kill them if they can!