Deadliest year for US troops in Iraq

[nhboy]

" BAGHDAD - The U.S. military announced six new deaths Tuesday, making 2007 the bloodiest year for American troops in Iraq despite a recent decline in casualties and a sharp drop in roadside bombings that Washington links to Iran.

With nearly two months left in the year, the annual toll is now 853 — three more than the previous worst of 850 in 2004.

But the grim milestone comes as the Pentagon points toward other encouraging signs as well — growing security in Baghdad and other former militant strongholds that could help consolidate the gains against extremists.

Deadliest year for US troops in Iraq - Yahoo! News

 

[ImnoMensa]

Thing had gotten slow and the deaths had slowed down,then along came this.

Democrats and liberals are celebrating this morning.

 

[Sonsie]

Thing had gotten slow and the deaths had slowed down,then along came this.

Democrats and liberals are celebrating this morning.

And it gave nhboy something to wank over this morning.

 

[Xaquin44]

Thing had gotten slow and the deaths had slowed down,then along came this.

Democrats and liberals are celebrating this morning.

I very seriously doubt anyone is celebrating the deaths of more troops.

maybe WBC, but certainly no one else.

 

[This_person]

I very seriously doubt anyone is celebrating the deaths of more troops.

maybe WBC, but certainly no one else.

The link in the first post sent me to something very different than the article quoted, but, if the link is bad and the article is good then the article didn't start with the good news of strengthening the Iraqis, or the rapid downturn of casualties. It was the deadliest year, even though the casualties dropped.

"Celebrating"? Maybe not. But, spinning to make good news bad by bringing out the worst part "in spite of" the good part? Yeah, and some might label that celebrating (that would be bringing out the worst in people "in spite of" whatever good they may have in them).

 

[Plan B]

... the article didn't start with the good news of strengthening the Iraqis, or the rapid downturn of casualties. It was the deadliest year, even though the casualties dropped.
..

Like, your spin?

 

[nhboy]

The link in the first post sent me to something very different than the article quoted

The paragraph quoted came directly from the link provided at the time but it appears Yahoo! changed the story and retained the link.

 

[This_person]

Like, your spin?

Sort of. Again, I couldn't read the article, because (as noted) the link went to a different story (apparently Yahoo changed it). But, the flavor I get from the part quoted is about the high death toll. The writer/editor/publisher could have chosen to write about the massive improvements in the area in terms of safety and stability for the people - that would have been an honest and relevant "spin". Instead, they chose to report on a number that is not relevant to the current conditions, which is an honest but misleading "spin". I guess it's the misleading portion that I object to.

 

[Larry Gude]

And what have...

...the lives of our troops bought us?

Saddam is gone. He is no longer a threat in the region. Iraq is no longer a WMD threat to anyone, either directly by using them or indirectly by supplying others.

Iraq is clanking along as a democracy. It is no longer a closed society. The issues of Shia and Sunni and Kurd are out in the open and are as sticky as ever but they existed before and were addressed through force.

Iran is on the international stage as is Turkey.

On the whole one could easily say things were quieter before we invaded but one must say that knowing that oppression was the price paid. Maybe it was never any of our business? Maybe we are in the middle of freedom slowly taking root in a land sorely in need of it?

 

[SamSpade]

...the lives of our troops bought us?

Saddam is gone. He is no longer a threat in the region. Iraq is no longer a WMD threat to anyone, either directly by using them or indirectly by supplying others.

There's still the very delicate matter of whether you leave the massive Iraqi oilfields in the hands of lunatic militia, or within an arm's reach of Iran. Presumably, the threat of Iran looming hungrily next door was one of the reasons we left Iraq intact the last time. And after a ten year war, they were still itchin' for it.

I don't imagine an Iraq run by a military dictatorship, al-Qaeda or Baathists aligned with Syria would be a good idea.

I don't know if it can be resolved. We've seen in the Balkans what happens typically when an oppressive regime breaks up after keeping its boot on the necks on ethnic groups that otherwise hate each other, for generations. It's a very common historical phenomenon - revolution is almost immediately followed by brutal civil war. We wagged a collective finger at Europe for allowing the slaughter in their own backyard. But it's actually rather calm now, and surprisingly, most of the Balkan states are friendly to the West.

 

[Larry Gude]

See...

I don't know if it can be resolved. We've seen in the Balkans what happens typically when an oppressive regime breaks up after keeping its boot on the necks on ethnic groups that otherwise hate each other, for generations. It's a very common historical phenomenon - revolution is almost immediately followed by brutal civil war. We wagged a collective finger at Europe for allowing the slaughter in their own backyard. But it's actually rather calm now, and surprisingly, most of the Balkan states are friendly to the West.

...that is a great point because we know from our own experience that civil war, as bad as it can be, isn't necessarily the worst thing that can happen long term for a nation. But we're passed that stage now, perhaps, and, perhaps, peace and prosperity can be reached without a full civil war. People do tire of violence.

Thing is, the oil fields in Iraq exist and if a state can be reached where the Iraqi people, if there is such a thing, have a vested interest and can find compromise, then...???

Would that set the stage, long term, for the regional players to be vested in a stable and free Iraq as well?

 

[SamSpade]

...that is a great point because we know from our own experience that civil war, as bad as it can be, isn't necessarily the worst thing that can happen long term for a nation. But we're passed that stage now, perhaps, and, perhaps, peace and prosperity can be reached without a full civil war. People do tire of violence.

I don't think so - I certainly don't think the Balkans would have been resolved at all without NATO intervention. And Sri Lanka, Eritrea, Somalia, East Timor, Kashmir and Uganda are great example of people never tiring of violence.