Reply With Quote
Bad karhma?
what are the odds of this happening? RIP.http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/meast/...ead/index.html
(CNN) -- Two U.S. soldiers whose signatures appeared on an op-ed piece in The New York Times critical of the war in Iraq were among seven Americans killed in a truck accident outside of Baghdad, family members said Wednesday.
Iraqi National Security Adviser Muwaffaq al-Rubaie said Wednesday he will support 2008 decrease in U.S. troops.
Staff Sgt. Yance Gray and Sgt. Omar Mora were members of the Army's 82nd Airborne Division, based at Fort Bragg, North Carolina.
Gray, Mora and five other soldiers died Monday when their truck overturned near the Iraqi capital, U.S. officials said.
Gray and Mora were among seven soldiers, mostly sergeants, who wrote the op-ed piece that appeared in the Times on August 19. It called the prospects of U.S. success "far-fetched" and said the progress being reported was being "offset by failures elsewhere."
"Four years into our occupation, we have failed on every promise, while we have subs uted Baath Party tyranny with a tyranny of Islamist, militia and criminal violence," they wrote. "When the primary preoccupation of average Iraqis is when and how they are likely to be killed, we can hardly feel smug as we hand out care packages."
Gray, 26, joined the Army out of high school in Ismay, Montana, in 2000, said his father, Richard Gray. Yance Gray is survived by a wife and daughter.
A relative at Mora's family home in Texas City, Texas, confirmed his death but had no other comment.
However, they concluded, "As committed soldiers, we will see this mission through."
Another of the signers of the Times article, Staff Sgt. Jeremy Murphy, was shot in the head a week before the article appeared but survived.
Meanwhile, a top Iraqi official said he foresees a decrease in foreign troop levels to less than 90,000 by the end of 2009 as Iraq bolsters and readies its security forces to take over responsibilities now being shouldered by the U.S.-led coalition forces.
The U.S. troop increase this year, dubbed "the surge" by the Bush administration, added nearly 30,000 troops to Iraq. The number of U.S. troops at present is more than 160,000 and the number of other coalition forces is more than 11,000.
National Security Adviser Mowaffaq al-Rubaie, speaking at a Wednesday press conference, told reporters that by next year the number of foreign troops might drop to about 130,000, the pre-surge level, or to 100,000 troops.
"When we reach 2009, we could talk about numbers that are less than 90,000" among the Multi-National Force, said al-Rubaie, who emphasized that such withdrawals would depend on the security environment and troop readiness.
Al-Rubaie made the remarks a day after senior U.S. administration officials said that President Bush is prepared to embrace the recommendation of his top commander in Iraq, Gen. David Petraeus, and withdraw as many as 30,000 U.S. troops by next summer.
Bad karhma?
Yes, WC...I'm sure God or Cosmic Justice made sure these guys got shot up for daring to question the Iraq War in a NYT op-ed.
What a bag.
You're getting as bad as boutons...
More families lose their loved ones just so the United States isn't seen as one giant pussy.
That isn't my point, and you know it.
That was in extremely bad taste, WC. You should be ashamed of yourself.
Then what is it? A garden of democracy will spring up in Baghdad with the US military permanently residing there? Give me a break. This is all about somehow salvaging some part of the legacy of the 43rd President of the United States of America.
More American kids must die because GWB and his supporters cannot admit a ing mistake.
I was talking about ‘pussies’ in a different thread. Must you mix and match threads to you liking? Can we maintain some continuity and context please?
I never said such thing, nor do I believe in utopian ideals. We are still fighting to restore order over there so they can leave a functioning government in place. Preferable one that is based on democracy, but it will likely be socialistic. It doesn't matter as long as they become peaceful partners with the world.
Are you always making such stupid assumptions?
This is about right and wrong, and fighting for freedom. It has nothing to do with preserving a legacy in those of us who claim to be conservative. If you were well informed at all, you would note that conservatives don’t like president Bush very well. That’s why his ratings are so low. He lost his base!
Sadly, yes. More will die.
Who cannot admit mistakes were made? My God. Several were. I guess mistakes are not made by Monday Morning Quarterbacks now, are they...
Difference between those who are primarily conservative vs. those primarily liberal is that we conservatives own and try to correct or mistakes, rather than dropping them and running away.
So we're occupying a country that did not have ties to al Qaeda, did not have WMDs and yet the US is 'fighting for its freedom' by continuing an undeclared war originally justified by flawed conclusions that were based on erroneous information?
It's rather clear the American military is fighting for nothing more in Iraq than the hope of pulling out something for George W Bush's legacy.
Actually the "conservatives" spent three years denying anything ever went wrong and claimed those who pointed out the mistakes hated America. Now that someone halfway competent is finally in charge in Iraq they're trying to claim scoreboard on mistakes too?
When does the insanity end? After Iran? Based on the logic employed to defend the Iraq invasion after it was clear it was based on inaccurate information, we need to invade Iran to 'fight for freedom'.
All because we can't stop 19 guys with box cutters.
You fool.
Holt, your last two posting show me just how much a fool you are.
You appear to blame us for not stopping 9/11... How would we have... some kind of pre-emption based on information handed down by the Clinton administration that they didn't act on?
Then you turn around and blame us for going into Iraq with lies.
They did have WMD. That is fact. Its just isn't accounted for. We had to assume they still had it.
They did associate with Al-Qaeda. There are multiple sources of confirmation.
Just because some assumptions are shown false does not make everything false.
So the invasion was based on inaccurate information which led to a conclusion which would not have been reached had the truth been known. What exactly has been preempted? By this logic we should be able to invade any country which perhaps might wish to attack us at some point in the future. Of course, that intent should be established by George W Bush looking into the eyes of the leaders of every nation on this planet.
Anyways, assuming that even an invasion of Afghanistan could have prevented 9/11 is a bit much. How about better airport and airline security? It's funny how an attack by 19 men with box cutters requires the invasion of states to prevent.
You're kidding, right?You appear to blame us for not stopping 9/11... How would we have... some kind of pre-emption based on information handed down by the Clinton administration that they didn't act on?
My God. What erroneous paths of logic you take. Different thread anyway, and I'm tired of saying what I said several times in the past, but there were several good reasons.
Sorry you think that way. This is not true. Not be a long shot. We may have to intervene, but not yet if we do. Besides, Israel would likely beat us to it.
Who ever spoke of a preemptive invasion of Afghanistan?
Now you want to infringe on freedoms, before it was necessary? You want the government to continue regulations that should be controlled by the owners of the airlines? Is that what you’re saying?
I'm done with this debate in the wrong thread. Start another thread if you want more from me on this issue.
These two died, it was tragic like all others. At least one of them had to be on a second term since he enlisted in 2000. He knew the risks, yet re-enlisted anyway.
How am I in error?
"Intervene"? Enough with the euphemisms. It's declaring war on a country because we think they might attack us sometime in the future. Or making war to prevent a war, as it were. Or as it might have been described in the 18th century: "re ed."
Sorry you think that way. This is not true. Not be a long shot. We may have to intervene, but not yet if we do. Besides, Israel would likely beat us to it.
Is not the central point of a preemptive military policy that it will prevent 9/11 level attacks? Would not a preemptive invasion of Afghanistan have prevented 9/11?Who ever spoke of a preemptive invasion of Afghanistan?
I am saying that the way to prevent such attacks is not by setting up a colony halfway around the world. Regarding airline safety, the government couldn't prevent known terrorists from entering this country and it prohibited pilots from arming themselves.Now you want to infringe on freedoms, before it was necessary? You want the government to continue regulations that should be controlled by the owners of the airlines? Is that what you’re saying?
I'm done with this debate in the wrong thread. Start another thread if you want more from me on this issue.
These two died, it was tragic like all others. At least one of them had to be on a second term since he enlisted in 2000. He knew the risks, yet re-enlisted anyway.
Stop being such a pussy. Sign up and serve you freedom hater.
God. I'm tired of repeatoing myself to idiots:
I'm done with this debate in the wrong thread. Start another thread if you want more from me on this issue.
Walk on home, boy.
Pantera = best TX band evar!
so, why are you still around?
Agent 99 says so. You should talk their parents into having that engraved on their headstones. You should further warn any soldier that talks ill of this war that they should die for their words.
I don't know. Five who didn't also died. What are the odds of that?
It's a ing war.
It's a pointless war today. How many more must die because the president can't admit that the war was based on erroneous intelligence? If he was honorable he would. I guess he doesn't have the nuts to do so.
No, No. The intellectual giant has determined it's bad kharma. It also touches those who associate. Agent 99 has determined that they got what they deserved.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
