7 more troops DIE..

[reeds]

Car Bomb Near Fallujah Kills 7 Marines

By JIM KRANE, Associated Press Writer

BAGHDAD, Iraq - An apparent suicide bomber detonated an explosives-packed vehicle on the outskirts of Fallujah on Monday, killing seven U.S. Marines and three Iraqi national guardsmen, the U.S. military said. It was the deadliest day for U.S. forces in four months of fighting.


In Baghdad, meanwhile, an Interior Ministry spokesman said medical tests on a man being held in custody showed he is not former president Saddam Hussein (news - web sites)'s deputy, Izzat Ibrahim al-Douri, ending conflicting claims about his purported arrest.


The man is a relative of al-Douri, said Interior Ministry spokesman Sabah Kadhim, and was wanted by authorities, but not an important member of Saddam's ousted regime.


The suicide bombing nine miles north of Fallujah — a stronghold for Sunni insurgents — destroyed two Humvees, witnesses said. Medical teams in helicopters swept into the dusty, barren site to ferry away the injured, and troops sealed off the surrounding wreckage.


The force of the car bomb sent the vehicle's engine "a good distance" from the site, a military official said.


The Marines killed were members of the 1st Marine Expeditionary Force, which is charged with securing the western Anbar province, an area rife with guerrillas. Names of the dead U.S. and Iraqi troops were withheld pending family notification.


Four Iraqis were wounded by fire from U.S. troops near the site of the bombing, said Ahmed Bassem of the Fallujah General Hospital. The U.S. military was unable to immediately confirm the report.


At least 990 U.S. service members have died since the beginning of military operations in Iraq (news - web sites) in March 2003, according to an Associated Press count based on the latest Defense Department figures and deaths reported Sunday and Monday. Two U.S. soldiers were killed in a mortar barrage outside Baghdad on Sunday.


In Baghdad, three U.S. soldiers were wounded in a roadside bombing Monday. The military also said an unmanned U.S. spy aircraft crashed Monday in Fallujah. Jubilant residents picked up pieces of the drone and danced in the streets, displaying pieces of the aircraft to reporters, witnesses said.


U.S. forces have not patrolled inside Fallujah since April, when U.S. Marines ended a three-week siege. The city has since fallen into the hands of insurgents who have used it as a base to manufacture car bombs and launch attacks on U.S. and Iraqi government forces.


The U.S. military has retaliated by launching several airstrikes on insurgent safehouses in the city.


Monday's deaths were the largest number of Americans killed in combat in a single day since May 2, when nine U.S. troops died in separate mortar attacks and roadside bombings in Baghdad, Ramadi and Kirkuk.


Seven troops were killed on two days last month, but in each case, there were six Americans and one foreign coalition member who died. On Aug. 21, six U.S. service members and one Polish soldier died in combat, and six were killed on Aug. 15, along with a Ukrainian soldier.


On Sunday, Iraqi officials said they had nabbed al-Douri — the most-wanted member of Saddam's regime — during a shootout north of Baghdad, but later in the day the Iraqi defense minister said word of his arrest was "baseless."


"The required tests to identify him showed that he is not Izzat al-Douri," Kadhim told The Associated Press.


There have been incorrect reports of al-Douri's arrest in the past.


American officials believe that al-Douri — Saddam's former right-hand man — is playing an organizing role in the 16-month insurgency that has plagued U.S. forces here.





Al-Douri was once the vice chairman of the Baath Party's Revolutionary Command Council and U.S. military officials believe he played an organizing role in the 16-month-old insurgency.

He is No. 6 on the U.S. military's list of 55 most-wanted figures from Saddam's regime — the king of clubs in the deck of cards — and U.S. forces have offered a $10 million bounty for his arrest. Forty-four of the people on the list already have been killed or captured.

Saddam was arrested on Dec. 13, hiding in a tiny underground bunker near Adwar.

Also Monday, a Turkish driver taken hostage in Iraq was released by his captors, Turkey's Foreign Ministry said. The release came a day after the driver's company announced it would withdraw from Iraq in line with his captors' demands.

Elsewhere, U.S. and Iraqi national guardsmen clashed with insurgents in the northern city of Mosul, the U.S. military said. Hospital officials said three civilians were killed and nine others wounded in the fighting late Sunday.

Iraqi police in the northern city of Kirkuk on Monday seized a car packed with explosives that authorities believed was going to be used by a suicide bomber, said police Col. Sarhad Qadir. He said 38 people were detained during the operation. Two days earlier, a suicide car bombing outside a Kirkuk police academy killed 20 people and injured 50.

In a separate incident in northern Iraq, unidentified gunmen shot and killed a Norwegian woman married to an Iraqi Kurd and slightly wounded her daughter, a police officer said Monday.

Col. Saman Mohammed of the local police in the northern city of Sulaimaniyah said the incident occurred Friday night when Marita Stroem, 38, her husband and their 5-year-old daughter were returning home from dinner at a friend's house.

Police questioned Stroem's husband and an official of the Patriotic Union of Kurdistan with whom they had dinner. The husband said during his interrogation that he believes that Muslim extremists may have killed his wife because she is a Westerner, Mohammed said.

[capitalcity]

Don't go starting another troop death count thread reeds. You can celebrate in this one.

Oh, and Reeds, your president will continue to fight the jihadists that want you dead. No matter what CNN says about the fight.

[MavKikiNYC]

7 soldiers die.

A country is being democratized.

And somewhere in Wisconsin a cynical, mocking fool attemts to exploit the ultimate honorable sacrifice.

[Mavdog]

It is sad and regrettable that the casualty figure has reached 2000 US servicemen. Even more regrettable is that the casualty figure will likely reach 3000 servicemen before the US presence is ended.

I'm hopeful that it won't reach 4000, but that could very well be the case as there is no "light at the end of the tunnel".

[kg_veteran]

Reeds - You make me sick.

[u2sarajevo]

Just so you guys know... this thread was started September of last year. I think capital was attempting to head off a reeds biting thread to promote and gleefully celebrate more deaths that would enable him to be able to bash his President again.

[Usually Lurkin]

one military guy's view of 2000:

Get ready for the big news...that isn't necessarily true....

The MSM is starting to gear up (and the anti-war left has been ready for a while) to present us with the story of "the milestone of 2,000 U.S. military deaths in Iraq".
Unfortunately, this story is bogus for a few different reasons. Please keep in mind I am military, and none of that which follows is to make light of any of the deaths not matter what column they fall into, but rather to point out that those that make hay about this milestone, and actually celebrating it to further their own cause.
First, being in the military is a high-risk enterprise, even when you are not in combat. Humvees roll over, helicopters crash, people commit suicide, people get hit by vehicles. People die. But in this instance, since they happened in a combat zone, they fit neatly into the meme of the leftists that "Bush Lied, People Died". They would have you believe that all of these brave souls died as victims of imperialist government fighting in an illegal war. Bringthemhomenow.org says "So far, more than 1950 U.S. soldiers have been killed in Iraq ...."

But only slightly more than 1500 have actually died from hostile fire. More than 400 military members have died due to non-combat causes. And not all of the almost 2000 deaths have actually happened in Iraq. If a military member dies in the AOR, on orders for OIF, his/her death is counted towards "the milestone of 2,000 U.S. military deaths in Iraq".

If you don't believe me, you can check it out for yourself.
A look at icasualties.org provides the following breakdown:


A look at CNN's special page on OIF Casualties is of course sobering, but also instructive. The default display that comes up, is an alphabetical listing. In a purely coincident support of my point, only 4 of the first 10 casualties are combat deaths, and one wasn't in Iraq at all. Now why you ask should we not count those non-combat deaths along with the hostile fire deaths? Mainly because hundreds of troops die every year (even when we are not at war) due to accident, in training, during exercises, even driving to work. As I said, being in the military is high risk, and those deaths should not be included in the left's precious "cost of war". I know of an Air Force officer who is on the list who died outside of Iraq, when he was off duty riding an ATV in sand dunes, and rolled the vehicle and broke his neck. Play around the ICasualties database, and you will see a lot of non-hostile deaths due to "vehicle accident" or "illness" or "building fire" or "electrocution" or "weapon discharge".

Now, as I said before, none of this is to make light of everyone that has died, no matter the circumstances. But he point is to not allow those on the left make you buy into this "milestone". It is bogus accounting to try and further an agenda, and as in many cases, the MSM won't exert itself to do the analysis it should and read the data behind the numbers. This is how myths and memes survive.

[FishForLunch]

When will Reed celebrate the 2000 troops die milestone, why did he settle for 7?

[capitalcity]

Originally posted by: u2sarajevo
Just so you guys know... this thread was started September of last year. I think capital was attempting to head off a reeds biting thread to promote and gleefully celebrate more deaths that would enable him to be able to bash his President again.

Pre-emptive strike.

[LRB]

It's sad when when Americans take to celebrating the fact that more American service men and women have died just because it provides ammo for their political arguments. The rightness or wrongness of the war in Iraq should be able to be made without trying to exploit the death of our fellow Americans. We've had wars since before the beginning of recorded and there has been no significant period where there was not armed conflict that we know of. The sad fact is that people die in wars. But even if we eliminated all war, that wouldn't in and of itself keep humans from killing other humans. What is so very sad is those who claim to hate war, yet find themselves celebrating the death of their countrymen like ghouls about to partake of a great feast.

[dude1394]

Here is why our heroes do what they do and then re-enlist...

From instapundit

GOOD NEWS FROM THE TROOPS: The Mudville Gazette has articles on both troop recruitment and troop retention. Greyhawk particularly likes this explanation given by a soldier for why he reenlisted: ..."because as I look around at the state of this nation and see all of the weak little pampered candy-asses that are whining about this or protesting that, I'd be afraid to leave the fate of this nation entirely up to them."

[reeds]

YEP-2000 is a very sad number...very sad..and for what? Iraqi freedom? what a shame...

Thanks bushy..2000 dead...250Billion plus spent..we are NO safer.what a joke of a man he is...

The majority of the country now beleives the war is going bad, and would NOT vote for bush if the elections were NOW...what a shame it took them this long to figure out what most democrats knew all along..he is a no good piece of crap...

[Five-ofan]

Reeds, generally I like reading your thoughts because I attempt to keep an open mind and hearing views different from my own help me with this alot. Even though I consider myself moderate, I do have conservative leanings and thus your points of view are very different from my own. That said this is just crap. Trumpeting the death of some of the finest citizens in this country, no matter the cause that you are trying to enhance, by said trumpeting is despicable.

The personal attacks on the president get tiresome as well. You want to debate his policies? I am all for that. Just stop with the bashing of him as a person. He is the president of the United States of America and that office at least deserves the respect of everyone. If you truly believe that we are no safer, then I just dont understand how you think because removing a dictator with a past history of aggression who had biological weapons and a proven hate for the US from power seems to make us safer to me. Not to mention the removal of a terrorist bed. The freedom of the Iraqi people is nothing??? Since liberals generally trumpet that we should consider ourselves more apart of the world, I would think that they would be the happier of the two groups about Iraqi freedom.

[reeds]

Five Ofan- I beg to differ..being the President of the United states doesnt give you a pass to "deserve the respect of everyone"..

And saying the attact on Bush is tiresome- well, who else deserves the blame? Can you please answer me that? Who led us into this war with IRAQ? Was it someone other than our fearless leader? If it was, please enlighten me O wise one.

"The freedom of the Iraqi people is nothing???" Never said that..but, now that you brought it up..was the freedom of the IRaqi People the reason we originally went to war?? YES or NO? NO..It was because Iraq had WMD. WMD that were never found! But Bush insisted we go in before the inspections were finished, without the backing of the rest of the world. YES- I can bash bush all I want to..and NO, He doesnt demand any respect at all..

[mavsman55]

So much for debate.

[Five-ofan]

Actually their freedom was as big a reason used before the war as WMDs. WMDs was ONE of the reason that he listed for wanting to go to war. Revisionist history however says that the only reason we went was because of WMDs. No he isnt above criticism because of his office. He is however entitled to respect because of his office. Maybe its because I am young and was raised in texas where I was taught to be respectful and if you wish to dismiss me as just a kid because of that that is up to you. However, I firmly believe that like him or not, being the president of the united states of america does warrant a certain amount of respect.

As to who else deserves the blame, I dont think that there is all that much blame to go around. As far as Im concerned Iraq has been relatively successful. Yes 2000 people will probably die before its over and that is tragic. However, its a war. People die. Its a fact of life. Name all the wars that America has been in in which less people died? Short list.

"YEP-2000 is a very sad number...very sad..and for what? Iraqi freedom? what a shame..." That sounds like you dont think that the freedom of a nation is worth 2000 deaths of US troops, which is a speculative number btw but I believe it will probably get there so Im not gonna dispute that. Those soldiers willingly chose to do what they did and for that I salute them and honor there memory rather than use there deaths in a shameless attempt at politics.

You have every right to bash Bush. That is one of the things that makes this country great. I also have every right to ask that you do it in a respectful manner considering the office that he holds. I disagree with several of his policies and if you want to debate them, you can bash them all you want but bashing the man just seems disrespectful of a man in an office that deserves at least as much respect as any office on the planet. ON message boards we ask that people disagree with what people say and not bash the poster who said them personally. I would think that the President is due more respect than someone on an internet message board.

[reeds]

In my opinion, respect is something that you earn. I respect many past presidents- and YES, even most of the Republicans. I know that is hard for some to believe, but it is true. Bush, NO way does he get any respect from me- ever. 2000 of our troops are dead based on what? And its hardly over..it could get much worse..

"Those soldiers willingly chose to do what they did and for that I salute them and honor there memory rather than use there deaths in a shameless attempt at politics." I salute them too..but, we differ here as well. Many chose to enlist- but many more had no idea what they were getting into...many were reserves who originally signed up for college money..Many wanted to make careers out of it- were near their 20 years and out, with no idea what so ever they might be in a bloody war..ALL? No, but many many did not CHOSE to be there.. I respect them all..just not the man who sent them there to begin with...

[Usually Lurkin]

Reeds, it was not called "Operation Iraqi WMD"

[kg_veteran]

Originally posted by: Usually Lurkin
Reeds, it was not called "Operation Iraqi WMD"

Greatness.

[reeds]

'Reeds, it was not called "Operation Iraqi WMD'

Of course it wasnt..for obvious reasons..because your almighty leader was WRONG as usual..He would have LOVED to have called it that, but, that would have made him look even more stupid (if that is possible). After WMDs were ruled out, the operation name was kinda obvious wasnt it?? Or it could have been called, "Operation- I F'd up, so we will call it this instead"..Now that would be a proper name.

[dude1394]

Maybe it should be called "Operation US Senate, Congreass, UN Overwhelmingly Supported It". But then you and your party would have to take responsibility for something instead of letting every two-bit despot acquire nuclear weapons right and left. You would also have to be rational...Pretty tall order for leftists these days.

Saddam Hussein kills millions - 30 cents worth of rhetoric. (Ah who cares, it's just a bunch of muslims)
North Korea fleeces US and gets Nuclear Reactors in bargain - $1,000,000...
2000 US Soldiers die protecting Reeds and he gets to politicise their deaths - PRICELESS.

Absolutely sickening... but typical. The lefties are trying so hard to relive their glory days when they defeated the US in 'Nam and sentenced millions of more people to death that they have become unhinged.

Sorry boys, your days are over.

[dude1394]

Strange...the more things change, the more they stay the same. In every generation their are those who are not willing to do the hard work..

October 28th, 1944

WASHINGTON (Routers) As this bloody and futile war enters its fourth year, the casualties continue to rise, and while it's hard to know how many American soldiers have been lost, due to a secretive Roosevelt administration, many analysts think that the number of deaths in brutal battle is now approaching a quarter of a million, with many more millions of civilian casualties in Europe and Asia. Even ignoring all of the innocent loss of life, the loss of American soldiers alone is now almost equivalent to that of the entire population of a medium-sized American city.

This mark is being reached amid growing doubts among the American public about the seemingly endless European and Pacific conflicts, hastily and, some say, thoughtlessly launched in December 1941 to avenge the attack on Pearl Harbor by radical Japanese Shintoists.

Here in the nation's capital, many urged the U.S. Senate to observe a moment of silence in honor of the fallen 250,000.

"We owe them a deep debt of gratitude for their courage, for their valor, for their strength, for their commitment to our country," said a prominent Democrat leader.

Critics of the war also acknowledged the sacrifice, even as they questioned the policies of those who lead it.

[reeds]

"UN Overwhelmingly Supported It".

You dont say? Looks like 4 countries supported a resolution backing the war with IRAQ! Hmmm..a super majority 9 out of 15 votes are needed..

Please Mr. Dude...dont go spewing non-truths...thats garbage and you know it...

Positions of Security Council members
United States - The US maintained that Iraq was not cooperating with UN inspectors and had not met its obligations to 17 UN resolutions. The US felt that resolution 1441 called for the immediate, total disarmament of Iraq and continued to show frustration at the fact that months after the resolution was passed Iraq was still not disarming.

United Kingdom - Within the United Nations Security Council, the United Kingdom was the primary supporter of the U.S. plan to invade Iraq. Tony Blair, the British prime minister, publicly and vigorously supported American policy on Iraq, but was perceived by some to exert a moderating influence on the American president George W. Bush. British public opinion polls in late January showed that the public support for the war had fallen to about 30%, although by March it had risen above 50%. Britain supported the proposed UN resolution on Iraq.

France - On January 20, 2003, French Foreign Minister Dominique de Villepin said, "We think that military intervention would be the worst possible solution," although France believed that Iraq may have had an ongoing chemical and nuclear weapons program. Villepin went on to say that he believed the presence of UN weapons inspectors had frozen Iraq's weapons programs. France also suggested that it would veto any resolution allowing military intervention offered by the U.S. or Britain, even if a majority of the U.N. Security Council members voted for it. Britain and the U.S. sharply criticized France for this position in March, 2003. De Villepin and Russian Foreign Minister Igor Ivanov garnered unusual applause inside the chamber with their speeches against the war.

Germany - On January 22, German chancellor Gerhard Schröder at a meeting with French president Jacques Chirac said that he and Mr. Chirac would do all they could to avert war. At the time, Germany was presiding over the Security council.

Russia - On the same day, Russian Foreign Minister Igor Ivanov said that "Russia deems that there is no evidence that would justify a war in Iraq." On January 28, however, Russia's opinion had begun to shift following a report the previous day by UN inspectors which stated that Iraq had cooperated on a practical level with monitors, but had not demonstrated a "genuine acceptance" of the need to disarm. Russian President Vladimir Putin indicated that he would support a US led war if things did not change and Iraq continued to show a reluctance to completely cooperate with inspection teams. However, Putin continued to stress that the US must not go alone in any such military endeavor, but instead must work through the UN Security Council. He also stressed the need for giving the UN inspectors more time.

China - The People's Republic of China supported continued weapons inspections. On January 23, the Washington Post reported that the Chinese position was "extremely close" to that of France.

Angola - Angola supported continued inspections, but had not taken a stand on disarmament by military action.

Bulgaria - Bulgaria suggested that it would support the use of military force to disarm Iraq, even without UN backing.

Cameroon - Cameroon encouraged the continued inspections, but had not taken a firm stand on whether or not the country would support a US led strike to invade Iraq.

Chile - Chile indicated that it would like inspections to continue, but had not taken a position on the use of military force to disarm Iraq.

Guinea - Guinea supported further inspections, but had not taken a position on the use of military force to disarm Iraq.

Mexico - Mexico supported further inspections, and indicated that it would support a US led military campaign if it was backed by the UN. The country hinted that it might consider supporting a military campaign without UN backing as well. President Vicente Fox heavily criticized the war when it started.
Pakistan - Pakistan supported continued inspections.

Syria - Syria seemed to feel that Iraq was cooperating and meeting its obligations under UN resolutions. Syria would have liked to see UN sanctions on Iraq lifted.

Spain - Spain supported the US's position on Iraq and supported the use of force to disarm Iraq, even without UN approval.

Analysis
According to Britain, a majority of the U.N. Security Council members supported its proposed 18th resolution which gave Iraq a deadline to comply with previous resolutions, until France announced that they would veto any new resolution that gave Iraq a deadline. However, for a resolution to pass a supermajority of 9 out of 15 votes are needed. Only four countries announced they would support a resolution backing the war.

[Five-ofan]

So instead of us the most powerful nation in the world acting as we feel, we should just cede that ability to France for the hell of it? Because basically thats what they said. We will veto even if everyone else votes for it. That is a unilateral action. To get corny and go with a line from spiderman, with great power comes great responsibility. Generally i feel that war should be avoided if it can but if it comes to the need to use military force, as the most powerful nation in the world, we have the responsibility to do so. As to the naming, it was named before the wmds were found to not be there. Hitler didnt have wmds either so dont act like that immediately absolves a dictator of all wrong doing. In closing, if someone is gonna be the country to do what they feel is right over the wishes of other countries it needs to be us. Did you miss the lesson in kindergarden when they teach you that the popular thing isnt always the right thing and vice versa?

[dude1394]

14-0 security coucil resolution supporting giving Iraq ONE LAST CHANCE to completely turnover their WMDs and weapons programs or face SERIOUS CONSEQUENCES. To transparently PROVE that they were not developing them ala South Africa. You can try to change history (ala the NYRag) but it won't happen. Even the Nobel Prize winning appeaser El Baridai(sp) stated that Iraq was not complying with the resolution.

And of course you conveniently ignore, forget, overlook, wish away, fool yourself about how your party also overwhelmingly supported the action in Iraq. AND continue to overwhelmingly fund it.

It must really hurt to see all of your "leaders" have so little backbone. They don't have backbone enough to see this action through, nor political backbone enough to try and end it by cutting off the dollars. Just no backbone. I actually commend your leaders for having the backbone to keep funding the action, however to carp from the sidelines even while supporting the action shows if not a lack of courage just sleaze in action.