Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
MIL-IRAQ-US SOLDIERS
Baghdad security crackdown seriously curbs killings of US soldiers
BAGHDAD, March 14 (KUNA) -- The rate of killings of US troops in Iraq has been on the decline, down by 60 percent, since the launch of the new security measures in Baghdad, according to statistics revealed by the Multi-National Force -Iraq Combined Press Information Centre.
Only 17 members of the US military in Iraq have been killed since February 14 till March 13, compared to 42 from January 13 to February 13; the rate was on the decline during the first month of the security crackdown, compared to a month before.
Two of the 17 soldiers died at US Baghdad camps of non-combat causes.
The remarkable decrease in killings among the US troops came at a time when more of these troops were deployed in the Iraqi capital, especially in districts previously regarded as extremely hazardous for them such as Al-Sadr City, Al-Azamiyah, and Al-Doura.
Meanwhile, US attacks on insurgent strongholds north of Baghdad curbed attacks against helicopters. Before the new security plan, many such craft were downed leaving 20 soldiers dead.
The US army in Iraq had earlier said that sectarian fighting and violence in Baghdad had dropped sharply, by about 80 percent, since the launch of the plan.
The statistics excluded US troops killed in other governorates such as Al-Anbar, Diyala, and Salahiddin.
As to the latest human losses, the US army announced Wednesday that two American soldiers had been killed, one in southern Baghdad and the other northeast of the capital.(end) ahh.
http://www.kuna.net.kw/Home/Story.aspx?Language=en&DSNO=961365
Which does not equate into a lost war for the US. Our goal is to stay until the democratically elected official government has the military ability to fight off a terrorist minority group who want to impose a dictatorship on them.the rebels in Iraq wont stop fighting until the occupying forces leave ,its that simple,there may well be civil war as America had a civil war
but it will eventually lead them to their own destiny and sovereignty whatever form that may take , America would not tolerate the occupation of there nation and the middle east wont either it would be a war without end
that editorial ends as follows:
If the president's plan won't work, what will? History suggests only four other ways to keep together a country riven by sectarian strife:
We allow or help one side to win, which would require years of horrific bloodletting.
We perpetuate the occupation, which is impossible politically and practically.
We promote the return of a dictator, who is not on the horizon but whose emergence would be the cruelest of ironies.
Or we help Iraq make the transition to a decentralized, federal system, as called for in its constitution, where each major group has local control over the fabric of its daily life, including security, education, religion and marriage.
Making federalism work for all Iraqis is a strategy that can still succeed and allow our troops to leave responsibly. It's a strategy I have been promoting for a year.
I cannot guarantee that my plan for Iraq (detailed at http://www.planforiraq.com) will work. But I can guarantee that the course we're on -- the course that a man I admire, John McCain, urges us to continue -- is a road to nowhere.
that is not "cut and run" that is not "surrender at all costs" that is a voice of reason and wisdom.... he should not be denigrated or shouted down or blythely dismissed.
Come on RSR you told the locals over here in
that you were at the USMESSAGEBOARD.com debating with the "Big Boys."
So far I have only witnessed you verbal masturbate with your keyboard.
Of course you are going to reply by citing a lot of the current negatives going on in Iraq right now (standard typical liberal fare, look at the negative)
BAGHDAD, Iraq (AP) -- Criticism mounted Saturday over a wall U.S. troops are building around a Sunni enclave surrounded by Shiite areas in Baghdad, with residents calling it "collective punishment" and the local council leader saying the community did not approve the project before construction began.
Violence continued Saturday, with at least three people killed when a bomb left on a bus exploded in Baghdad's Sadr City neighborhood, police said. The minibus was gutted by flames and its windows shattered.
Gunmen stormed a house in Kirkuk, 290 kilometers (180 miles) north of Baghdad, killing a mother, father and their two teenage daughters, police said. The victims were Kurds who had received death threats from al Qaeda-linked militants operating in the area, witnesses said.
A U.S. soldier was also killed Saturday by a roadside bomb southwest of the capital, the military said.
The U.S. military says the wall in the minority Sunni community of Azamiyah is meant to secure the neighborhood, which "has been trapped in a spiral of sectarian violence and retaliation."
If the "surge" (as opposed to more "stay the course" which is what it really is) is working so well, why are we building a wall in Baghdad?
how's that 60% reduction in American casualties because of the success of the surge workin' out for ya, RSR? I haven't seen that press release in some time. Isn't it time to trot that out again?
Since the terrorists know how badly Dems want to surrender they increased the attacks
Every member pf the US military the terrorists kill, Dems use as a stepping stone to press for surrender
To bad for rerrorists, Dems watched their poll numbers tanking, so they surrendered to Pres Bush
I see you ignored Pretty Boys previous statements - not surprised by that at all
I ignore nothing.... I just happen to be focusing on one of YOUR statements right now..... one you have yet to retract and admit was bullshit. Are you ready to make such an admission now?
The deaths were down, much to the dismay of the left
The terrorists wanted the Dems surrender bill to pass so they increased their attacks
The more dead troops, the better for the anti war left
To bad the voters sent a message to the Dems not to surredner - sinking poll numbers
the sinking poll numbers for congress were because congress failed to pass the democrat's funding bill and voted to sustain Bush's veto of it.
and the "deaths were NOT down". if we lose five GI's today and only 2 tomorrow, that does not mean that the casualty rate has dropped by 60% due to the success of the surge...especially when we lose 8 the day after that and 6 the day after that and 10 the day after that. YOur statement about there being a 60% reduction is american casualties was BULLSHIT and you know it.
The poll numbers are a result of the surrender bill and many broken promises
Liberals always let their arrogrance get in their way of accomplishing things
the "surrender bill" , as you intentionally mischaracterize it, had the solid support of 57% of the people. FAILING to pass it with a strong veto proof majority, and SUSTAINING the veto of it drove congressional numbers down.
the people wanted that bill...the democrats tried to deliver it, but the republicans thwarted the will of the people. No WONDER they're pissed at congress!
So the people wanted to surrendner yet they give the Dems a lower number then the President who vetoed it?
Liberal logic is something to behold
the people wanted the democrat's bill and they gave CONGRESS a lower number for sustaining that veto.
conservative ignorance and bullheadedness is nauseating to behold.
you really are a fucking tarbaby.....
