Suicide car bomber kills 2 U.S. Marines in Iraq

Wednesday 23rd April, 04:39 AM JST

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

Latest 15 of 23 Total Comments Show All

Madverts at 06:15 PM JST - 23rd April

skip,

My point was proven long ago.
jambon at 09:08 PM JST - 23rd April

On Monday, top Sadrists warned that open warfare was a “strong possibility” and complained that the government appeared uninterested in a peaceful settlement.

"Warned." "Complained."

Heh. Bring. It. On.
medievaltimes at 12:02 AM JST - 24th April

As bad as the US has handled this illegal war, they aint quite as bad as everyone makes them out to be.

If the US was using suicide car bombs in markets etc, the world would be in an uproar. But a story like this doesnt get much more than a glance.
Madverts at 12:37 AM JST - 24th April

Medieval,

Sure, but the US put the "suiciders" there. And they can't squash 'em.

That's my gripe.
Madverts at 07:53 PM JST - 24th April

"Heh. Bring. It. On."

Sign up and fight then, lunch. Otherwise, your empty bravado for this failed conflict seems as hollow as a rotten tree trunk.

And besides, they "brought it on" a long time ago.
medievaltimes at 01:16 AM JST - 25th April

Sure, but the US put the "suiciders" there.

Madverts, no disrespect but you are wrong. The US didnt decided to put bomb laden people in markets. And I dont see how the US pushed the detonation buttons on those bombs.

Again, as bad as the US has bungled so far in this illegal war, they are not even a fraction as bad as the other guys. This is where the double standard exists. The US doesnt force religion on people. They dont cut off peoples heads because they have a different belief system. They do give women the same rights as men. They do give people the right to protest. They do treat their prisoners better becuase...ah...the US actually takes prisoners. And so on, and so on...

As far as you saying this is a "failed conflict", its way too early to say. We are talking about regime change. This whole process is going to take years, perhaps several decades.

We are in the second inning of a baseball game. And the game might still go into extra innings.
Madverts at 01:38 AM JST - 25th April

Medieval,

"The US didnt decided to put bomb laden people in markets. And I dont see how the US pushed the detonation buttons on those bombs."

I didn't say they did. I stated the invasion that we all protested put them there.

And you (rightly) state this conflict could go on for decades...so that means all the extremists in Iraq will most likely continue to make average Iraqi's life hell for decades to come....and you say this isn't a failed conflict?

I disagree in the strongest terms.

Hundreds of thousands of people have died because of this un-necassary conflict. Hundreds of thousands will die yet I imagine. The wole region is even less stable than it was, and worse, Iran now has a very strong influence of what's left of Iraq on a scale the was un-imaginable when "evil" Saddam was at the helm....

I don't mean to offend you either, but I'm afraid that the pooch is screwed mate. It got screwed long ago, in fact.
medievaltimes at 09:25 AM JST - 25th April

I stated the invasion that we all protested put them there.

Madverts, each side needs to take responsibility for their respective tactics. There have been some ugly things on both sides, but the way I see it-again-the US is going about their business a whole lot better than the other guys. The US doesnt use suicide bombers.

And you (rightly) state this conflict could go on for decades...so that means all the extremists in Iraq will most likely continue to make average Iraqi's life hell for decades to come

Thank you for making my point. You used the words "extremists" and "continue to make Iraqis life hell" together. Stop blaming the US for the suicide bombers.

Even if it goes on for a few decades longer, with time I think you will see the conflict shift from a military one to more of a political/economical one, which means fewer dead people.

and you say this isn't a failed conflict?

Read my post again. I said "its way too early to say".

The wole region is even less stable than it was

Of course it is, becuase there is a war going on right now. The real test is going to be, was the region more stable in 1990 or in 2030? Again, its too early to tell.

I don't mean to offend you either, but I'm afraid that the pooch is screwed mate. It got screwed long ago, in fact.

No offense taken. But, what critera are you using to define "the pooch is screwed"? Again, its too early to make such a judgement. There are many components to regime change. Its not just all military. There are many things that have yet to be played out, even after the troops "go home".

The US strips some prioners naked and scares them with dogs and the world is outraged. But when the other guys use suicide bombers, it barely raises an eyebrow. The US doesnt use suicide bombers. The other guys do.

Again, double standard.
Madverts at 04:54 PM JST - 25th April

"Stop blaming the US for the suicide bombers. "

No, thank-you. The US created, against my wishes, a monumental breeding ground for terrorists an Islamic extremists like I said they would. They may not be responsible for the individual actions, but they are ultimately responsible for what is happening. Saddam would have cut the fundies off at the knees.

"The US strips some prioners naked and scares them with dogs and the world is outraged."

They went a bit further than that. And the army protected it's own. And then there's Haditha, the "pacification" of Fallujha.....

This it what get's me the most when idealistic Americans get on their high horse. Heh, if you're going to walk the moral high-ground, then expect to be held accountable when you're not at the standard you claim to want everyone else to be. In my experience, walking this terrain always makes you a hypocrite.

Again, Medeival, it is the US's fault this is happening for poking its' greedy nose where it surely didn't belong. No one else's. I'm sorry you don't like to hear it.
medievaltimes at 06:31 PM JST - 25th April

The US created, against my wishes, a monumental breeding ground for terrorists an Islamic extremists like I said they would.

Choosing between the US and the terrorists, I guess I would choose for the US to win this conflict. But hey, thats just my opinion.

They may not be responsible for the individual actions, but they are ultimately responsible for what is happening.

I agree with you here. The US chose to get into this mess, so in the end they will be the ones responsible for the what happens in the end. I think the whole debate is about WHAT should happen and HOW it should be done.

Saddam would have cut the fundies off at the knees

Saddam was a fundie. Gassing the Kurds. Intentionally targeting civilians by lobbing scuds into Israel (sounds similar to terrorist doesnt it?) Setting oil fields on fire. Not to mention they way he came into power. He was a fundie.

They went a bit further than that.

You are right, they did. But again, they didnt stoop to the same level as the bad guys. Bad things always happen in war regardless of which side you are on. I guess in my opinion the terrorists have gone a whole lot further a lot more often than the US. Thus the double standard.

""Heh, if you're going to walk the moral high-ground, then expect to be held accountable when you're not at the standard you claim to want everyone else to be.""

I think this is missing the point. The US has decided so far to not intentionally target civilians. The extremists have decided to. Not about walking a moral high ground, more about choice of tactics to accomplish the goal. If soldiers commit crimes they should be held accountable. I think most everyone would agree with that. Although Im not a big fan of the US military, I guess I like their form of justice better than the extremists form of justice.

""it is the US's fault this is happening for poking its' greedy nose where it surely didn't belong. No one else's. I'm sorry you don't like to hear it.""

As per above agreed the US is responsible for the outcome of this thing. As for poking its nose where it doesnt belong, its up for debate. On one hand after 9/11 I can understand why the US would have an interest in proactively going after extremists. America got caught with their pants down and they dont want it to happen again. On the other hand, going around the world forcing regime change on countries is akin to a bully and its going to carry a heavy military, political and financial cost.

Lastly, I dont mind hearing others opinions. Its ok to disagree. We are all certainly entitled to believe what we want.......that is as long as we are not under the rule of the extremists;)
Madverts at 07:57 PM JST - 25th April

"Choosing between the US and the terrorists, I guess I would choose for the US to win this conflict. But hey, thats just my opinion."

Fine. But on what do you base it? The US doesn't have a positive track record since 1945 when it comes to invading other countries to "solve" their problems. Maybe you could indicate to me any other guerilla war in history that has been won by the force with superior fire power?

"I agree with you here. The US chose to get into this mess, so in the end they will be the ones responsible for the what happens in the end. I think the whole debate is about WHAT should happen and HOW it should be done."

There isn't anything to be done IMO, other than the US bogging of home, which they won't do because they only reason they really went had F all to do with Freedumb.

"Saddam was a fundie."

No he wasn't. You couldn't be more wrong. Saddam was a secular dictator. The deifference is so huge in fact that I shouln't need to explain this to you. Whilst he clearly had and used vicious means to remain in power, he kept the red-eyed Islamic fundies squashed under his heel and I, quite frankly, consider this as the only viable manner in dealing with the bastards. That's one of the reasons I supported leaving him in power.

"Gassing the Kurds."

Yeah - I don't like this argument. The Americans knew what he was up to - they, along with the Brits, French and Germans supplied him the gas and the means to deliver it. Was anybody talking of an invasion on the back of that back then?

I see you don't mention his gassing of Iranians in the '80 - '88 war...then again, heh, I'm not surprised since at that point the Americans were not only spplying the gas an the choppers, they were actually giving him satellite images to better gas Iranians! (Check my "moral high ground" reference here for assistance)

"You are right, they did. But again, they didnt stoop to the same level as the bad guys."

And you feel fine lowering yourself to the horror of the actions of Islamic terrorists in a comparison to make the actions of certain seem more palatable?

OK.

"Not about walking a moral high ground, more about choice of tactics to accomplish the goal."

You're mis-interpreting that. The moral high ground applies when you're forcing your way of life down the throats of people who don't necassarily want it, and then resort to things like the "pacification" of Fallujha. Personaly, I think that incident wasn't far from genocide just on its' own.

"As for poking its nose where it doesnt belong, its up for debate."

No it isn't. The reasons given were "WMD". He had none. The back-up justification was "humanitarian". 'Nuff said.

"On one hand after 9/11 I can understand why the US would have an interest in proactively going after extremists."

But as Reality shows, all they have done is create more...

"America got caught with their pants down and they dont want it to happen again."

So they attacked a country that had nothing to do with it, controlled by a dictator who ruthlessly surpressed Islamic nut-cases?? Nah, that's Bush Co propoganda fantasy splurged straight from the republican slime machine and you've bought it hook, line and sinker mate.

"Lastly, I dont mind hearing others opinions. Its ok to disagree. We are all certainly entitled to believe what we want.......that is as long as we are not under the rule of the extremists;)"

Great. :) Me too. I just think that the rule of extremists is where Iraq is headed....when the US finally has to leave after yet another disaterous, idealogical foray and subsequently abandons the spoils she originally set out for. As I said, they'll do everything they can before they abandon, but I can see al-Sadr or a nutter like him taking residence in that whopping US embassy before too long.
medievaltimes at 12:27 AM JST - 26th April

Verts, I hope the mods dont start pulling posts cause we are straying a bit off the news story topic, but Ill give it a try.

I guess I would choose for the US to win this conflict.

You asked what I base this on. I base this on the belief that the US version of Iraq would be a lot more desireable than the extremists version of Iraq.

The US doesn't have a positive track record since 1945 when it comes to invading other countries to "solve" their problems.

Agreed, but its not really relevant to my original posts or the article.

There isn't anything to be done IMO, other than the US bogging of home, which they won't do because they only reason they really went had F all to do with Freedumb.

The US will have to decide when and how to pull out. Personaly, as I said before, the war is illegal and I dont think they should be there in the first place. But, now that they are there, I think it would be a worse situation if they suddenly packed up and went home. It would be a disaster for the country, the region and have economical and political consequences world wide that would be greater than if they stayed.

Saddam was a secular dictator. The deifference is so huge in fact that I shouln't need to explain this to you.

You are right, I stand corrected. Labels aside, Im glad hes gone.

The Americans knew what he was up to - they, along with the Brits, French and Germans supplied him the gas and the means to deliver it. Was anybody talking of an invasion on the back of that back then?

Its common for countries sell their weapons to other countries. I think what matters more is what each countries respective actions are. If you could convince me that the Brits, French, Germans and the US knowingly assisted Saddam and knew of his intentions to gas civilians before the sale then you would have a case.

And you feel fine lowering yourself to the horror of the actions of Islamic terrorists in a comparison to make the actions of certain seem more palatable?

Not sure how I am lowering myself to the terrorists. My point was simple. A double standard exists. If the US were using the tactics of the extremists there would be an uproar. The same people that would uproar dont seem to be as vocal when the extremists use these tactics. Double standard.

The moral high ground applies when you're forcing your way of life down the throats of people who don't necassarily want it, and then resort to things like the "pacification" of Fallujha.

Agreed. Any crimes committed in Fallujha (or anywhere else for that matter) should be dealt with according to law whether it be country law or military law. As for forcing your way of life down throats, a mandatory form of democracy is better than a mandatory form of Islamic extremism. With Democracy you dont get your head cut off becuase you have a different religion.

No it isn't. The reasons given were "WMD". He had none. The back-up justification was "humanitarian". 'Nuff said.

Agreed. Thats why I said I believe this war is illegal in my earlier post. I was saying its up for debate becuase while I do think it is illegal, I think there is something to be said for invading even without proof of WMD. The people that subscribe to this (and there are more than a few) think regime change is the way to go. Iraq being the first with others to follow (or be forced to follow). The long term goal being the transformation of the whole region. I dont buy this argument fully but bits and pieces have merit IMO.

But as Reality shows, all they have done is create more...

Of course a lot of extremists are out to play...because there is a war going on with the infidel America. The point is its only about 7 or so years into this thing. It doesnt really matter how many extremists there are now. It matters how many there will be in 2035. Again, regime change with one country (not to mention perhaps several) is going to be a long drawn out process.

Moderator: Stay on topic please.
Zaphod at 12:54 AM JST - 26th April

medievaltimes:

" The US will have to decide when and how to pull out. Personaly, as I said before, the war is illegal and I dont think they should be there in the first place. But, now that they are there, I think it would be a worse situation if they suddenly packed up and went home. It would be a disaster for the country, the region and have economical and political consequences world wide that would be greater than if they stayed. "

....and if they stay it is a collossal and open-ended waste of Western ressources and lifes. The whole premise of playing police force (and terrorist cannon fodder) while waiting for a Shiite muslim government to create liberal democracy, which will never happen, is absurd.

I think they should pull out, but be realistic about the bloodbath which follows. To continue acting on an illusion is idiotic.
medievaltimes at 08:10 AM JST - 26th April

Zaphod,

and if they stay it is a collossal and open-ended waste of Western ressources and lifes.

thats the argument for packing up and leaving ASAP. I thinks its bad idea as per previous post.

The whole premise of playing police force (and terrorist cannon fodder) while waiting for a Shiite muslim government to create liberal democracy, which will never happen, is absurd.

Depends on what time frame. It is quite realistic to see a stable form of some type of government by 20235.

I think they should pull out, but be realistic about the bloodbath which follows.

Exactly. They know if they pull out too soon, they might have to go back in at a later date under worse conditions.

Oh, and by the way as it pertains to the article, the lack of outrage over the extremists choice of tactics is a double standard.
medievaltimes at 08:12 AM JST - 26th April

that should be 2035