RunInRed 16,492 Posted June 3, 2008 Share Posted June 3, 2008 BAGHDAD, Iraq (CNN) -- Nineteen U.S. troops were killed in Iraq in May, the fewest killed in any month since the war started. The second-lowest month for American deaths was in February 2004, when 20 were killed. May's toll was a significant decrease from April, when 50 were killed -- the highest monthly figure since September. The U.S. military death toll spiked last year as the U.S. troop escalation, dubbed the "surge," was unfolding. In 2007, there were 104 deaths in April, 126 in May and 101 in June. Numbers began dropping when the "surge" strategy took hold and Shiite cleric Muqtada al-Sadr suspended the activities of his militia, the Mehdi Army. There were 78 American deaths in July, 2007; 84 in August; 65 in September; 38 in October; 37 in November; 23 in December; 40 in January; 29 in February; and 38 in March. May's death numbers appeared to support Senate testimony last month from Gen. David Petraeus, the top U.S. commander in Iraq. Petraeus said recent operations in three Iraqi cities have "contributed significantly to the reduction in violence." The month of June may not bring such optimistic news. A suicide car bomb struck an Iraqi police checkpoint outside police headquarters in Mosul on Monday, killing nine people, including four police officers, and wounding 46 people, a Mosul police official said. Eight of the wounded were police officers, the official said. The incident took place in southern Mosul's Dawasa commercial area at about 7 p.m. the official said. Mosul is about 260 miles (420 km) north of Baghdad. http://www.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/meast/06/02/...toll/index.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
autigeremt 6,717 Posted June 3, 2008 Share Posted June 3, 2008 Very good news indeed. Gen. David Petraeus has done a fine job so far. We certainly need to finish this job and come home with victory for those who serve and those who have fallen. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tigermike 3,055 Posted June 3, 2008 Share Posted June 3, 2008 Yes it is good news, actually great news. But how have the dims acknowledged this success? "Well, the purpose of the surge was to provide a secure space, a time for the political change to occur to accomplish the reconciliation. That didn’t happen. Whatever the military success, and progress that may have been made, the surge didn’t accomplish its goal. And some of the success of the surge is that the goodwill of the Iranians-they decided in Basra when the fighting would end, they negotiated that cessation of hostilities-the Iranians." Democrat Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi http://www.aunation.net/forums/index.php?showtopic=47927 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RunInRed 16,492 Posted June 3, 2008 Author Share Posted June 3, 2008 Yes it is good news, actually great news. But how have the dims acknowledged this success? "Well, the purpose of the surge was to provide a secure space, a time for the political change to occur to accomplish the reconciliation. That didn’t happen. Whatever the military success, and progress that may have been made, the surge didn’t accomplish its goal. And some of the success of the surge is that the goodwill of the Iranians-they decided in Basra when the fighting would end, they negotiated that cessation of hostilities-the Iranians." Democrat Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi http://www.aunation.net/forums/index.php?showtopic=47927 What you fail to understand is that all Americans want us to succeed there. Where we differ is in how we define success. The Republican end game (as hinted at by McCain's infamous 100 years remark) is some kind of permanent occupation/base in the middle east where we can mediate unrest in the region. By this definition, we will always have troops there. The Democrats want Iraq to be a free and independent country but also realize that you can't force a democracy through the barrell of a gun and that ultimately, the Iraqi people have to decide their own future . In the meantime, they don't have a blank check from the U.S. If the Iraqis were paying for some of this it would be one thing, not too mention all of the irreplaceable troops... My bigger beef though is how thin it has stretched our military, how it has caused us to take our eye of the AQ targets in Afghanistan/Pakistan, and how it has left us vunerable in our ability (or lack thereof) to be able to respond to a military crisis any where else in the world. Not too mention, the strategic blunder and optional war has emboldened Iran and in a lot of ways, made us less safe. But besides all that, yeah, we should stay there 100 years Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tigermike 3,055 Posted June 3, 2008 Share Posted June 3, 2008 Yes it is good news, actually great news. But how have the dims acknowledged this success? "Well, the purpose of the surge was to provide a secure space, a time for the political change to occur to accomplish the reconciliation. That didn’t happen. Whatever the military success, and progress that may have been made, the surge didn’t accomplish its goal. And some of the success of the surge is that the goodwill of the Iranians-they decided in Basra when the fighting would end, they negotiated that cessation of hostilities-the Iranians." Democrat Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi http://www.aunation.net/forums/index.php?showtopic=47927 What you fail to understand is that all Americans want us to succeed there. (Yeah that has been obvious from the dims talking points for, well forever.) Where we differ is in how we define success. ( The Republican end game (as hinted at by McCain's infamous 100 years remark) is some kind of permanent occupation/base in the middle east where we can mediate unrest in the region. By this definition, we will always have troops there. (That's not the first lie you have told today is it?) (So if you want to stick with the 100 year remark, then Obama being an appeaser and wanting to surrender to Al-Qaeda, Iran, Syria, North Korea, Valenzuela, Cuba is also accurate and spot on. Thanks for surrendering those points.) The Democrats want Iraq to be a free and independent country (and in their little minds it will just magically happen. So let's surrender and hope for the best) but also realize that you can't force a democracy through the barrell of a gun and that ultimately, the Iraqi people have to decide their own future . (Which they have been doing and doing well) In the meantime, they don't have a blank check from the U.S. If the Iraqis were paying for some of this it would be one thing, not too mention all of the irreplaceable troops... (They are, any other points?) My bigger beef though is how thin it has stretched our military, how it has caused us to take our eye of the AQ targets in Afghanistan/Pakistan, and how it has left us vunerable in our ability (or lack thereof) to be able to respond to a military crisis any where else in the world. Not too mention, the strategic blunder and optional war has emboldened Iran and in a lot of ways, made us less safe. (Complete hog wash and you know it. The U.S. military and coalition forces have been doing a pretty good job in Afghanistan and have been stepping up operations over the past year.) But besides all that, yeah, we should stay there 100 years What you fail to do is comment on Pelosi's statement both here and in the original thread posted on this forum. And don't think the dims new strategy for Obama is not obvious. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
arnaldoabru 11 Posted June 3, 2008 Share Posted June 3, 2008 What get's me about all this " appeaser" labeling is that the same day Bush makes his 'historic' talk in Israel slamming Obama the Israli's were starting talks with Syria. Those dern appeasers Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
autigeremt 6,717 Posted June 3, 2008 Share Posted June 3, 2008 Bush wasn't bombing Obama. Maybe taking a small jab at him, but I feel it was at Pelosi, Carter, and others. Not Obama. Obama used it as a way to "retort" to show he's more than a speech giver. Obama was way over the top on that one, but he capitalized on it as I would have done in their shoes. (Thank God I know better than that). JK.....hehe Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.