CNN Breaking: 2 U.S. troops missing, 1 killed in attack - Iraq

http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/meast/06/16/iraq.main/index.html

BAGHDAD, Iraq (CNN) -- A U.S. soldier was killed and two were unaccounted for Friday after they came under attack at a traffic checkpoint in Yusifiya.

A search was under way for the two missing soldiers in the town about 20 miles southwest of Baghdad.

As far as I know the only other U.S. soldier currently classified as "missing" is PFC Keith Maupin, missing since April of 2004.

A sad turn of events on another bloody day in Iraq.

sadly I believe tragic events like this will play over and over again until so many are missing and dead that the stupid ass congress has no choice but to call for "cut and run" Stupid, Evil, Selfish MFers! Just like Vietnam.

:grr:


:argh:

To have three troops unsupported in a hot area is a dumb mistake. We are too thin over there. We can't even guard our own troops.

It's been over 2 years!

I though that was him. So sad.

I can't imagine that he's still alive but I don't remember hearing or reading anything about him in a long time.
:( :cry:

He's still listed as MIA. :(

The corporate media doesn't care about this poor man. I've not heard anything about his MIA status in years. No need to dwell on bad news. :(

It shows what a pack of chickenhawk screwups they are

western Iraq a few weeks ago? I never heard the end...

Not many details were reported

I was impressed by how quickly the military declared them "officially unaccounted for" (as if they went AWOL in the middle of a war zone) as opposed to what they really are, POW's. So much for seizing the initiative and gaining offensive momentum after Zarquawi's death (although I hear Republican lawmakers utilizing that event to regain political momentum which only goes to show what this war is really all about).

That's an inaccurate term at this stage. They could have been blown absolutely to bits, for instance, and they're still vacuuming the sand for dog tags. Unaccounted for is the accurate term at this point; POWs - lacking any evidence to that effect - is not.

"They could have been blown absolutely to bits, for instance, and they're still vacuuming the sand for dog tags..."

I didn't hear about any massive explosions, I heard that the QRF responded to gunfire and that troops, presumably, involved in that gunfiring, are now unaccounted for. Did I miss something? Gunshots do not disintegrate people. The most logical conclusion, given the available data, is that they were captured. Soldiers, in the middle of a war zone, do not easily become "unaccounted for" nor do they readilly fall out of communication with higher command.

Soldiers, in the middle of a war zone, do not easily become "unaccounted for" nor do they readilly fall out of communication with higher command.

:rofl:

If it happens, something terribly wrong has occured such as the case in question. It isn't the norm as you imply with your scathing emoticon laced ad hominem.

"Scathing emoticon laced ad hominem." First, finding a claim funny is not the same as an ad hominem argument. I've said nothing negative about you. In fact, I'm sure you're an interesting, smart, well-rounded person. If I bump into you, I'll buy you a beer. As for "emoticon-laced," I'd love to see how that works, and if you read my post as scathing, I suggest you look around this board a bit to see what scathing really looks like.

Now to the substance of the claim. It is certainly a feature of this war that very few people have been "unaccounted for" for any length of time. In other wars, however, it was quite common for many people to be "unaccounted for" after major actions. So common, in fact, that your claim that it constitutes some situation normal AFU is, on its face, wrong. This has to do in part with the nature of combat, and in part with the strict definitions established for MIA's, etc. In most mode3rn warfare, it has very much been the norm for personnel to be unaccounted for after combat action. It happens. It is not rare in general. For this war, sure, it's been rare - especially for ground troops, but we've still seen numerous cases of pilots, etc., being unaccounted for, even for days. Ditto on personnel who've been drowned.

"As for "emoticon-laced," I'd love to see how that works, and if you read my post as scathing, I suggest you look around this board a bit to see what scathing really looks like."

I've seen my share of scathing diatribes. I was actually trying to be humorous in an insouciant kind of way. Regarding your much more substantive rebuttal, we are in agreement. I should have specified that I was talking about the most current/modern version of our military. In past wars, chaos and confusion were dominant features and getting LLMF (lost like motherf***ers) was pretty common. I have conducted military operations in foreign urban environments (fairly recently) and understand the lengths that we go to to ensure that soldiers are accounted for at all times and I am speaking from that experence. I have not heard anything about these soldiers having been found. Unless I have missed something, I think my instincts are proving themselves right. I do think the insurgents are maneuvering to deny us the initiative after Zarquawi's death and a campaign of capturing POWs will certainly blunt any offensive we might be thinking of mustering. If I were them, I'd be capturing coalition forces left and right.

Or even worse "invader combatants", in which case the insurgents might think they are "not covered" by the Geneva convention.

Sadly it was America that set this precedent.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

1) The insurgency did not "willfully target skyscrapers." We don't know who did 9/11: Bush was warned about Osama and al Qaeda, but did nothing to stop their attacks. Yet, he let Osama escape (as well as his family in the US after the attacks and before US investigators could question them). Makes me wonder what Bush knew (take a look at the video when Bush was told at the elementary school "we are under attack." He does nothing...why?)

2) "they started sawing off people's heads" We don't know who did this either. I find it interesting that so many beheadings took place during the summer of 2004, just before the election. Then, no beheadings since November that I can remember.

3) "I think America has exercized immense amounts of restraint and civility in combatting this enemy contrary to certain perspectives." Don't forget, we are the invaders. We are occupiers, and "occupation" doesn't mean "liberation." And we invaded based on the lies of George W. Bush and his mob (so where are the WMDs?). In reality, Bush used a suspicious attack on Americans to invade a country that had nothing to do with those attacks. Bush would have been more honest if he dubbed his illegal war as:

Operation
Iraqi
Liberation

But then, when was Bush ever honest?

You should read more about the last 8 years and not rely on FoxNews for your information.

Oh, and welcome to DU! :hi:

within the party that will be exploited to no end by Republicans in any upcoming elections. The inability of the Democratic party to present a unified front on this war will not win us seats. I will address your points by the number:

1.)
"We don't know who did 9/11"

It was a group of radical/fanatical Islamic militants who we have conveniently labeled "the terrorists" or, in more enlightened circles "Al Queda." There was apattern of their evil doings that went back to the Clinton years; however, they came into being during the Reagan years when we supported their efforts to oust the former Soviet Union from Afghanistan.

"Yet, he let Osama escape (as well as his family in the US after the attacks and before US investigators could question them). Makes me wonder what Bush knew (take a look at the video when Bush was told at the elementary school "we are under attack." He does nothing...why?)"

Please don't get the idea that I'm a Republican if I don't immediately attack Bush at every opportunity but in this instance, I have to side with fuhrer. If I had just gotten that news, I would have taken a moment or two to digest it and contemplate it before I jumped up out of my seat and ran out the door into an assassins bullet; thereby leaving the country even more vulnerable. It's not that I like Bush, it's just that I think this argument is weak and dishonest.

2) "We don't know who did this either. I find it interesting that so many beheadings took place during the summer of 2004, just before the election. Then, no beheadings since November that I can remember."

Are you implying that Bush has used some kind of secret CIA connection/operation to saw off heads in order to gain some kind of political capital? I prefer to think that the enemy realized that their attempts to terrorize us by publicly beheading people with dull hunting knives had backfired. These events were designed to weaken American resolve; however, by and large, American resolve increased as a result much in the way that British resolve increased after Hitler began launching V-rockets into downtown London. Recognizing that their tactics were producing the opposite effect for which they were intended, they gave up the tactic in favor of an even worse tactic, indiscriminately attacking Iraqi civilians in an attempt to deny us critical popular support (a tactic employed by the VC during Vietnam also). The success or failure of a guerrilla war is welded to the popular support of the indigenous population or the lack thereof incidentally.

3.) Don't forget, we are the invaders. We are occupiers, and "occupation" doesn't mean "liberation."

There is no clear consensus on what we are. Some Iraqis would really like for us to leave and some desperately want us to stay. As was the case in Vietnam, most people will tell you whatever you want to hear in order to avoid being an enemy of anybody. What's more, the population is diverse in their needs, wants, and expectations. I think most rational Americans recognize that there is a time for leaving and a time for staying. What is most important is that we are making observable progress towards a time for leaving. I think if we must play politics with this war, we should attack this lack of observable progress instead of yelling and screaming about things that can't be changed now.

4.)But then, when was Bush ever honest?

Was there ever an honest politician?

5.) Bush would have been more honest if he dubbed his illegal war as:
Operation
Iraqi
Liberation

That's a whole different topic. There's no doubt that oil is a part of this equation; although, I don't think it figures into the equation the way most people think.

6.) You should read more about the last 8 years and not rely on Fox News for your information.

You assume too much. You should quit arguing with like minded people and, for your information, my TV is tuned to CNN 90% of the time. I only watch FOX news to find out what the administration wants me to think.

7.) Oh, and welcome to DU!

Thank you friend. I look forward to the dialectic.

Although the Bush administration has treated prisoners poorly and inhumanely when it suited them.

Most likely, they are dead.

This wording is unusual for press releases in my experience. But maybe they are dead.

On edit:
The story calls them "missing troops", and says "A search was under way for the two missing soldiers".

:shrug:

You can use the term hostage if you prefer.

To say people are missing and that you are engaging in a search usually implies an expectation (or at least a possibility) of finding those people alive. Those were the terms that the CNN article used, presumably because those were the terms that the military used.

Granted, there were a lot of Missing in Action in earlier conflicts that were really dead, but I don't know that the combat characteristics of this war are very similar. A classic case of the former is the mud of the Ypres Salient, which swallowed up unknown numbers of live soldiers. I don't know that there is an equivalent situation in Iraq. If troops were simply blown up at a checkpoint, the U.S. military would use some other language, in my opinion.

The US launched a war of aggression against Iraq and is now occupying that country with a brutality not seen since Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan. The US has ignored international law. US troops wouldn't be considered POWs were they to be captured by the Iraqis fighting the Occupation.

When the law goes out of the window, anything goes!

I recommend the film "Red Dawn" for those interested in knowing how an insurgency against an occupying foreign power treats any foreign soldier that is captured or wounded.

There is, at this point, more evidence to suggest that they are MIA/POW and not KIA. I think we're probably arguing with insufficient information on both sides but my instincts are telling me that they have been captured.

Yes. You're right. Which is why the term "unaccounted for" is more accurate than POW or prisoners, since it indicates "insufficient evidence" to make any other judgment.

And I agree with your instincts. Well said.

Another sad day in a never-ending trend of sad days for our troops, and their loved ones.

Just for the record.

Now.

I'm sure they're going to be treated "decently" Wake up, if those guys are in insurgent custody, they are done for. BTW, comparing military custody to insurgent custody is a BIT of a stretch. Last time I checked, there weren't any beheadings even during Abu Ghraib's worst hours.

That's what the Bushies told us anyway.

al-Masri's stomping grounds is the ominous sounding triangle of death, S. of Baghdad.

This was SW of Baghdad. In, or adjacent to, the new AQ leader's stomping grounds.

Wait for the spin.

debut.

I've been expecting it though. Things in Iraq are about to take a very nasty turn.

:scared: :cry:

A young man, far from home. He gets hit with a homemade IED, or some kind of bomb explodes.

As he breathes his last breath, he might have his last word, "Mom" on his lips.

Such a terrible way to go. Amid dust, dirt, blood draining out of his lifeless body. In a senseless war.

So very far from home.

Back in the Viking Times, Scandinavians had to deal with their young men taking off on long voyages, maybe never to be seen again. It was absolutely devastating for them to hear the news that their son, maybe their nephew was killed in some kind of battle. According to Viking tradition, the body required a proper burial in order to go to Valhalla and meet with their relatives. When the body was missing, it made it doubly tragic. They felt that the soul would not find its way to Valhalla, and be doomed to walking the earth as a ghost.

That's why the Scandinavians set up Rune Stones, to honor their dead.

Just tragic.

Grass Bush

Pile the bodies high in Austerlitz and Waterloo Iraq
Shovel them under and let me work--
I am the grass; bush; I cover all.

And pile them high in Gettyburg Baghdad
And pile them high in Ypres and Vedum Yusifiya and Al Fallaujah

Two years, ten years, and passengers ask the conductor:
What place is this?

I am the grass bush.
Let me work.

Carl Sandburg


Support the war - Donate a Son a daughter
The GOP working for a better America
God Bless America

BUT ZARQAWI IS DEAD AND BUSH IS ON A ROLL ACCORDING TO KELLY O'DONNELL

They don't like it when they capture GI's it's a big embarrassment for them.

Also the photo shows the coffins of children killed by insurgents. I don't remember seeing any pictures of the coffins of children killed by american bullets.

It's one thing to know your child is dead. It's another to not know what his or her fate is.

I can't imagine what these families are going through. They are in my prayers.

I hope the two missing soldiers don't wind up in a video with Zarqawi's replacement.

missing from Gulf 1? They spoke about him in the MSM when we toppled Saddam. Not heard anymore on him for several years again.

*found this on another board...now this makes sense to me.how about you?

""""More to this story than the Pentagon is letting on - You don't just drop a trio of soldiers in a hot bed of insurgent activity without support.

The civilian leadership may be incompetet beyond hope but the command on the ground certainly knows better.

So heres what really happpened that the Pentagon (Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld etc etc) doesn't want you to know...

Those 3 US troops were supporting Iraqi security forces, who either

A: cut & run under fire,

or B: aided the insurgents.

Either way, the Bush admin will say & do anything to try & maintain the illusion that the Iraqis are making progress in standing up a loyal security service - The Nov elections depend on maintaining this illusion

Any disturbance in this sleeping pattern can not be tolerated by the Bush Criiminals

but you would have to be almost on top of them for location.

that these soldiers were captured by masked insurgents. I guess they're accounted for now.