Iraq bloodshed in April kills 1,073

Thursday 01st May, 07:26 AM JST

The requested article has expired, and is no longer available. Any related articles, and user comments are shown below.

Latest 15 of 36 Total Comments Show All

Sarge at 02:57 PM JST - 1st May

The U.S. military, along with the Iraqi security forces which are still in the process of being built up, are bravely fighting the extremist wackos who would torture and kill or enslave us without hesitation or remorse. They ought to be applauded and given our full support.
redacted at 03:31 PM JST - 1st May

"Iraq bloodshed in April kills 1,073"

A mere 1, 073 for the month of April ?

Cahn't be.

Lancet figguhs (figures) published in 2004 showed that there were a thousand Iraqis dieing every single day - 600,000 dead in the first 18 months of Bush's War for Oil! that has brought gasoline down to 30 cents/gallon in America, wot?

A figguh (figure) of 1,073 for an entire month (and the dead mostly insurgents)is pro- surge propaganda of the vilest sort.
SezWho2 at 04:06 PM JST - 1st May

Sarge,

I don't think there is any doubt that our troops are fighting bravely. When they are fighting al-Qaeda, though, they are fighting people who weren't there before we ventured into Iraq. And, when we are fighting the Sadr-ists we are fighting a native population who would prefer to fight al-Qaeda on their own.

We have applauded our troops, recognized the sacrifice of over 4,000 dead, winced at the many more wounded who thanks to the miracles of our medicine will bear the physical loss of war all their lives and worried for the thousands upon thousands who have have been psychosocially maimed. To the tune of half a trillion dollars we have supported the troops with the best of equipment that money can buy.

But applauding the troops and supporting the troops does not mean endorsing their efforts. Iraq is a game that a large number of Americans--if not the majority--believe to be not worth the candle.
redacted at 05:59 PM JST - 1st May

"When they are fighting al-Qaeda, though, they are fighting people who weren't there before we ventured into Iraq."

By gum, sezwho, I do believe you have been caught prevaricating.

Again.

Zarqawi was in Iraq after leaving Afghanistan in 2001. This is well-known, but the Left just keeps reconstructing their narrative about Iraq:

"bush wants to steal all a duh oil. "

"bush needs a war to keep the dollar the world's main currency"

"America are fomenting civil war so they can like, divide Iraq."

And now that those have been shredded it's this line about no Al Qaeda in Iraq till we went there.

If you're going to admit to AQ's existence why is it you can not take them at their own word?

Zawahiri and bin Laden have both said Iraq is the most important battlefield.
Zaphod at 06:10 PM JST - 1st May

Sezwho2:

" Troop withdrawal may not "bring" peace. But troop presence hasn't brought it either. "

Not "may not bring peace". It will bring an eruption in the region the likes of which you have not seen, because the current troop presence keeps a lid on it.

Again: It is perfectly valid to discuss troop withdrawal (and I am for it), but be honest about the results, for crying out loud!

Claiming that by withdrawing the troops, Iraq will become peaceful is a totally idiotic statement. Those who present that are either dishonest or clueless about the situation.
SezWho2 at 07:36 PM JST - 1st May

redacted,

The commissions appointed by the Bush administration disclose there was no connection between Iraq and al-Qaeda before the invasion. Why can you not take your own administration at it's word?

Zarqawi may have been there. One swallow does not make a spring.
SezWho2 at 07:48 PM JST - 1st May

Zaphod,

Who made the statement that "by withdrawing the troops, Iraq will become peaceful"? Don't you need to stuff a little more straw into that man?

What I suggested was that troop withdrawal may be necessary to clear the way for peace. I don't think I ever suggested--and to the best of my knowledge no one else has either--that an immediate breakout of peace would attend the removal of troops. No one ever said that the aftermath of a troop removal would be pretty.

The question is whether troop presence can guarantee anything other than a permanent state of conflict and whether that would be any better or worse than the result of troop withdrawal. We know what is happening now. We do not know what would happen with a troop removal--and wouldn't that depend on the manner of the troop removal anyway? It's fine to call for honesty, but it's a little silly to be dishonest while doing so.
SuperLib at 09:25 PM JST - 1st May

Well, on the plus side, it is nice to see the monthly figures back in the headlines on Japan Today. When they were falling during 2007 they wouldn't even print them.
skipthesong at 10:19 PM JST - 1st May

Why can you not take your own administration at it's word?"

thats a very odd to ask.
SezWho2 at 11:58 PM JST - 1st May

skipthesong,

Why do you say so? Are you suggesting that the administration lies?

What I am suggesting is that Zarqawi does not equal al-Qaeda. For Zarqawi to be in Iraq does not mean that there was any militant al-Qaeda movement in Iraq. I am also suggesting that the administration has indicated that this was so. And that it would be far better to take the administration's word for it since it would have the greater reason to wish the information to be otherwise.
adaydream at 03:16 AM JST - 2nd May

Yep, I've been convinced by Zaphod and the longer we stay in Iraq and kill the Iraqi people into sunmission, the better.

The longer we walk down their streets and show the US military strength/might this will bring peace.

The longer we do the jobs that the Iraqi Army and Police are supposed to do, the better.

I'm starting to get this.

If we make our presence in Iraq for 50 years or 100 years it's alright. What ever it takes to get peace, it's perfectly alright to take away from future generations of this country.

It's perfectly alright for Iraq to make money off petroleum sales ($70,000,000,000.00 last year) and none of it is going to Iraq reconstruction.

I'm starting to see now.

The countries in the middle east told us to leave Saddam, but george bush knew better.

That's why we pay for the entire george bush Memorial War in Iraq and none of the countries in the middle east are helping to fund our fight, when it protects them more than it does us.

That's why other countries have slowly pulled their support.

Yes Zaphod the longer we stay in Iraq the better.
WhiteHawk at 03:20 AM JST - 2nd May

adaydream,

Your solution for victory in Iraq is...?
adaydream at 04:10 AM JST - 2nd May

Too bad you've been gone WhiteHawk.

I've given my solution several times.

Tired of it.

I can see that the republicans have better plans.

I told you, I'm convinced.
WhiteHawk at 04:12 AM JST - 2nd May

Since you won't repeat it, can I guess?

Drop everything and leave it for Iran to take over.

Was I close?
WhiteHawk at 07:17 AM JST - 2nd May

Your poll numbers are from five years ago? That's hardly relevant now. How about coming up with somthing current?

http://www.fbi.gov/wanted/topten/fugitives/laden.htm

What part of IN ADDITION, BIN LADEN IS A SUSPECT IN OTHER TERRORIST ATTACKS THROUGHOUT THE WORLD do you not understand? Does it say "other terrorist attacks throughout the world except 9/11"?

"Wipe Israel off the map" wasn't a threat? Fascinating. Do you do translation work for Barack Obama too? Because he's had a rough time being understood lately.

The hostage crisis came as a retalliation due to how US was exploiting Iran.

Oh right, nothing about hating the decadent West, eh?

Americans were killing, torturing, kidnapping Iranians who opposed the Shah

Now there's a steaming pile of bovine scatology. You've got some proof, right? Real proof, not some YouTube/Alex Jones den of paranoia.

A friend of mine, a fellow pilot, his dad used to deliver airplanes to the Shah. He used to fly with his dad on some of those trips. He never mentioned killing, torturing or kidnapping any Iranians. Sure, the Shah was no saint, but considering what we had to pick from in that culture, at that time, there wasn't much better.

Americans have the bad habits of starting a blood bath because they want to steal other country´s natural resouces.

If we ever start a bloodbath in Canada or Mexico, you might have something. Because those are our two biggest importers of oil. Until then, you're only trying validate your bigotry and fantasies.