18 Insurgents Dead, No US Casualities

By
February 2, 2007

It appears you’d better be able to read Chinese if you want to read any of the positive stories out of Iraq these days.

The U.S troops killed 18 insurgents in fierce clashes in the restive city of Ramadi, west of Iraq, the U.S. military said on Friday.

The clashes broke out Thursday night when insurgents opened fire on the U.S. troops from several positions in the city, some 110 km west of Baghdad, the military said in a statement.

The U.S. troops fired back with machine-guns, tank fire and air strike, killing 15 insurgents, the statement said.

The troops were under attack again on Friday when insurgents armed with rocket-propelled grenades and small arms opened fire from several buildings, prompting the U.S. troops to fire back and call in another air strike, killing three more insurgents, it said, adding no U.S. troops were killed or wounded in either attack.

Ramadi is the capital of the volatile Anbar province and has been a bastion of insurgency against the U.S. troops since the war began in 2003.

Source: Xinhua

Please consider supporting RiehlWorldView with a small donation
, by shopping at Amazon via our Associate link in the sidebar or by re-distributing our content across the Web with the options below. Thank you.


Comments:
  1. scarshapedstar says:

    Wouldn’t a “good story” be more like “Nobody died in Iraq today”?

  2. Charles Warren says:

    Wow !
    How many times does it make it now that we have won absolutely spectacular victories in Anbar ?
    How many offensives have we launched to pacify Anbar ?
    Haven’t 1,000 Americans died in Anbar alone ?
    You may want to be in Iraq forever. I don’t.

  3. Darth Malice says:

    We need to be there.This war with Islam is permanet…..get used to it.

  4. “Wouldn’t a “good story” be more like “Nobody died in Iraq today”?”
    Wishing good health on terrorists pretty much reveals where your headspace is at doesn’t it?

  5. Charles Warren says:

    War isn’t “permanet”.
    The security of this nation does not require trying to conquer and rule the Muslim world. Trying to do what the British, French, and Soviets could not.

  6. Dan Riehl says:

    Soviets could not
    We’ve already done what the Soviets couldn’t do in years, and we did it in weeks. And if you want to fool yourself by thinking that we have imperialistic or colonial designs on the Middle East, you’re incredibly dumb, incredibly unamerican, or perhaps both.

  7. Darth Malice says:

    Thanks Dan……Charles read the book “America alone”

  8. Charles Warren says:

    “We’ve already done what the Soviets couldn’t do in years, and we did it in weeks. And if you want to fool yourself by thinking that we have imperialistic or colonial designs on the Middle East, you’re incredibly dumb, incredibly unamerican, or perhaps both.”
    Dan, you dolt, the Soviets, like us (and like the British before us), controlled the major cities of Afghanistan. But like us and the British they never pacified the countryside. They were as powerless as we are to prevent the steady flow of jihadis from Pakistan or to prevent the mujihaddeen from setting up base areas in Waziristan.
    Tell me so some more about how oil has nothing to do with this war. Do you think the Iraqis are stupid enough to believe for a minute that this is about anything other than stealing their oil ?

  9. “But like us and the British they never pacified the countryside.”
    Newsflash: The US government hasn’t “pacified” the US either. We still got lots of crime, gangs, etc.

  10. richard says:

    Dan, are you going to reply to Applepie’s link above that proves that the premise of your post is false? I’m just askin’….

  11. Dan Riehl says:

    are you going to reply
    To what? I saw four reports of 18 dead and hundreds on the helicopter incident.

  12. Carl says:

    Yawn. Billions spent so tht 18 goatherders could be ‘liberated’. That is not news. The fact that the goatherders are able to shoot down helicopters with increasing frequency is. Stay the course!

  13. Darth Malice says:

    Carl ,you are right….Wipe out all the goat-molesters.

  14. Andrez says:

    Ah yes, the flat-earth redneck con solution – ‘nuke ‘em all’. Good thing your kind only serves to dig ditches and stop bullets.

  15. Darth Malice says:

    Andrez as opposed to your kind who hide underneath their beds…..I have never dug a ditch by the way.

  16. Darth Malice says:

    Besides I am only thinking of those POOR goats!!!!

  17. Clyde says:

    Charles Warren, we don’t need to “conquer and rule the Muslim world.” All we have to do is make them understand that attacking our cities with hijacked airplanes (or worse) will result in the destruction of the regime(s) behind the attacks. They also need to understand that attacking our cities with any kind of nuclear device would result in thermonuclear cleansing. I’d like to see everyone in the world live in democratic peace and prosperity, but I’ll settle for having them not attack us. We need to be sufficiently ruthless so that is the end result. We haven’t been up to this point, and that’s why Iraq continues to fester. We should have disarmed the entire Iraqi populace in 2003, and shot on sight anyone caught with a weapon. Call it “tough love.”

  18. Sweetie says:

    “the Soviets, like us (and like the British before us), controlled the major cities of Afghanistan”
    The Soviets were INVITED in to Kabul. They then betrayed the government that invited them in.
    “Do you think the Iraqis are stupid enough to believe for a minute that this is about anything other than stealing their oil ?”
    Stealing Iraq’s oil = we invaded Afghanistan to build a pipeline that nobody seems to be interested in building
    Lefties need to refresh their talking points

  19. richard says:

    Clyde, who from Iraq flew any airplanes into buildings in the US?

  20. Carl says:

    Those Iraqi goatherders sent 20 evil-doers to America on 9/11 and… No, wait they were SAUDIS, you know like Bandar Bush and friends. Keep up the good work, cons.

  21. 91B30 says:

    So hey-Saddam gets a pass for sheltering Abdul Rahman Yasin for all those years after the 1993 WTC bombing then.
    Why should we care about an attempt to kill 50,000 people on the second anniversary of Iraq’s retreat from Kuwait?

  22. REN says:

    When people say that this is a ‘war for oil’, most have only thought through part of the reality of what this oil means. America and the West have, over the last century, enabled poor, mostly uneducated Bedouin tribes with the means and the money to enrich their own lives, as we enrich our own in relation. It’s actually an incredible and inspiring story, and most of these Bedouins have indeed made themselves better for and because of it, as America has. Now, America waging a ‘war for oil’ in its’ most literal sense is true, the ownership and revenues of the oil in the Middle-East IS a concern for the U.S. but only in that this same well-spring of money has been and will continue to sometimes fall into the hands of those who would like to turn back the clock on everyone because modernity is altering Islam and the peoples of Islam. America and the West do not need more oil from Iraq, or from Afghanistan (which is relatively BARREN compared to its’ neighbors), but they do need for Fanatical Muslims to not have direct access to that same oil money. We haven’t stolen anything and will not steal it in the future. This ‘war for oil’ has more to do with who pockets and uses the money THERE, not here.

  23. yyy says:

    I am always inspired when third world countries are “enriched” by trading away their raw materials at commodity prices to first world countries who use to make manufactured goods that are then sold back to the third world at first world prices.
    Is is usual the nutters simply change their reason when confronted wtih reality. Since no Iraqis were involved in the WTC attack, none came from Iraq, were funded by Iraq or even came to the West from Iraq, they came from the UAE, our “allie” and they were almost all Saudi, our other “allie” or Egyptian, our “allie” who is number 2 on the list after Israel of US aid.
    But, sure, um, yeah, getting rid of Saddam would teach them some lesson.

  24. willis says:

    “They were as powerless as we are to prevent the steady flow of jihadis from Pakistan or to prevent the mujihaddeen from setting up base areas in Waziristan.”
    I’m not so sure that preventing a flow of jihadis out of their holes out into open combat with us is a good idea. I don’t care if the terrorists came from Iraq or not. They simply cannot allow us to establish freedom and democracy there uncontested and so they come to get slaughtered. The greater point is that they wanted this war and provoked it. Undoubtedly they didn’t want it to be in Iraq. They wanted it to be in the US and fought on their terms, but they aren’t getting it their way and thank goodness neither are you. And refusing to contest them will not end their ambition to continue the war, just as it did not end their ambition to start the war.
    “Tell me so some more about how oil has nothing to do with this war. Do you think the Iraqis are stupid enough to believe for a minute that this is about anything other than stealing their oil ?”
    Not much of a point. Do you have some facts to support our propensity for stealing oil or some plans for doing so?

  25. Charles Warren says:

    “They simply cannot allow us to establish freedom and democracy there uncontested and so they come to get slaughtered.”
    Why not ? Every time there is a fair election they win. Muslims vote for Baathists or Al-Dawa or the Muslim Brotherhood or Hamas or Hezbollah.
    “Undoubtedly they didn’t want it to be in Iraq. They wanted it to be in the US and fought on their terms,”
    The war is the Shiite-Sunni thing which hasn’t got one damn thing to do with us. Your scenario of Sunnis and Shiites duking it out in Times Square is ridiculous.

  26. db says:

    Dan, how nice that you’ve finally found a media outlet you can appreciate: the propaganda organ of the Chinese government.
    I love your media criticism. Truly nuanced and enlightening. Can’t wait to read more. Tell me, what other propaganda outlets do you like? I heard the Ethopian government has fantastic journalistic standards in their paper.

  27. Dan says:

    This, in part, explains my profound disapointment in the Iraq War: those who still support the war are reduced to pointing at incidents like this while scores of Iraqis die every day in Baghdad due to the Sunni-Shiite conflict.
    DU

  28. njoriole says:

    Yes Charles, it’s all about “stealing their oil.” Really, how can you lefty-dudes continue to peddle this nonsense? If all we wanted was oil, Saddam would have made a deal in a heart beat. And once we actually conquered Iraq (and yeah, even with IED’s and sectarian violence, we could impose our will, when and where we desire, if we really were the ruthless imperialist bastards you seem to think we are), what could possibly stop us from taking it? And yet, counter to that fable, things occurred that were directly opposite your rich fantasy: the price of oil sky rocketed due to the market’s insecurity; rather than make off with their wealth, we have spent considerable amounts of our own and we haven’t yaken one barrel from the Iraqi people. Please Charles, write like a grown up.

  29. Fabulinus says:

    Q. Wouldn’t a “good story” be more like “Nobody died in Iraq today”?
    A. No you peacenik moonbat, the status quo is an Iraq with many insurgents and terrorists plotting further violence. If “nobody” dies in Iraq on a given day, then the status quo remains, meaning the enemny rests comfortably and continues planning attacks. A “good story” IS “18 Insurgents Dead, No US Casualities”

  30. Bill Adkins says:

    See, here you have this story; “A suicide truck bomber struck a market in a predominantly Shiite area of Baghdad on Saturday, killing 121 people among the crowd buying food for evening meals, police and hospital officials said. The death toll made the attack one of the deadliest single bombings in the capital since the 2003 U.S.-led war.”
    Now, if the Pentagon had gotten to it first, it could be reported that “121 insurgents killed today in Baghdad.” See? Depends on who’s keeping score.

  31. willis says:

    “Now, if the Pentagon had gotten to it first, it could be reported that “121 insurgents killed today in Baghdad.” See? Depends on who’s keeping score.”
    Bill, we know who’s keeping score–the MSM. AP’s version would have it “121 insurgent freedom fighters killed today in Baghdad.”
    “The war is the Shiite-Sunni thing which hasn’t got one damn thing to do with us. Your scenario of Sunnis and Shiites duking it out in Times Square is ridiculous.”
    You’re right Charles. They’re duking it out in the WTC, not Times Square. Or has the left now written that out of history, just like they no longer ever spit on a Viet Nam vet.

  32. Kurt Duncan says:

    Actually, I *can* read Chinese. A little bit. I highly recommend looking into it, especially if China ever realizes what unleashing the market forces of a population could mean for them, vis-a-vis the entire rest of the world.

  33. Darth Malice says:

    Sunni or Shia makes little difference in the end.Both sects hate us they just argue who gets to kill us first.

  34. Dusty says:

    Dan, are you going to reply to Applepie’s link above that proves that the premise of your post is false? I’m just askin’….
    Posted by: richard | Saturday, February 03, 2007 at 03:29 AM
    Richard, I don’t it proves much. The first item on Applepie’s list is the WaPo and the heading on Google is “US troops kill 18 insurgents in Iraq”. Clicking it, and the title is “U.S. intelligence paints gloomy picture of Iraq”. The information in Xinhua is covered in the WaPo article in paragraph 14 on page 2 after all the exepert ‘gloomy’ analysis.
    The second link is Reuters, same title in link as in Google, has 19 paragraphs of which 4 are about the attack and appears to be a version of which the WaPo modified.
    As for the ‘day later’ trope, Applepie fails to consider that China very often IS a day later than where the action is dated and time-stamped and is a full 12 hours (sometimes 13 hours) later than here on the US eastern seaboard, such that it might appear to be further behind in reporting than it actually is.
    One thing China’s report is, is very close to the Centcom statement, and in that regard faithful to the article’s title and is the bulk of the article. One thing it is not is a adjectival strewn report of the writers biases and ‘master of the obvious’ news that Iraq is dangerous, violence is occurring there daily and there is contentious debate about it here at home.
    I’d also note the AP story that is similar to that report by Xinhua, was about 78 of the links, primarily published, about equally, by the local tv station sites and smaller newspapers, with a smattering of international groups like Guardian. WaPo did pub it too, though.
    Lastly, and more to the point of Dan’s post, I do think Xinhua reports regarding Iraq are more likely to be dispassionate and unbiased, mainly because they have no dog in the fight.

  35. Paul says:

    “War isn’t “permanet”.
    The security of this nation does not require trying to conquer and rule the Muslim world. Trying to do what the British, French, and Soviets could not.”
    If we were trying to ‘conquer and rule,’ you’d know it. Most importantly, the enemy would know it because countless more of them would be dead and their cities destroyed.

  36. Darth Malice says:

    Paul thanks….that is exactly what I am thinking.

  37. Jeremy Abrams says:

    Sure, the first one or two free elections go to jihadists in these countries, but after they live under the rule of extremists, people tend to moderate, and grow politically mature. many Iranians regret their popular selection of Khomeini back in the 70′s, which though not an official election might as well have been one. The Palestinians are learning the consequences of selecting an extremist regime now.
    People change and grow – if they are free to do so.

  38. red says:

    I am always inspired when third world countries are “enriched” by trading away their raw materials at commodity prices to first world countries who use to make manufactured goods that are then sold back to the third world at first world prices.
    ———————————–
    This is the comment of someone who knows nothing about commodity prices. Oil pumped out of the ground in Saudi Arabia costs about $ 2 dollars. It costs about $ 15 dollars to transport it to the US or Europe. The world market price is about $ 56 dollars. Where do the other 39 dollars go? OPEC is using its cartel (monopoly) power to charge much higher prices than would be justified by a free market. They could at least be grateful, but instead all we hear is how unfair this arrangement is. Cr&*&.
    What we sell to them (because they have nothing else to do with their dollars) has nothing to do with it.

  39. grayson says:

    red, this is actually the comment of someone who doesn’t really know much about prices at all, never mind commodity prices. Instead of Marx, it’s probably best to read up on a little Ricardo. It might help resolve exactly why comparative advantage is PRECISELY why the Saudis should pump oil and sell it to us (instead of pumping it ourselves – since, oh, right! we do have oil deposits in America), and why they should buy their “first-world” goods at “first-world” prices.
    The short form in this particular case is that we have oil and other energy resources, and – for a price – we’ll use our own. Similarly, we can grow bananas, yams and rice – things we also import from other countries. When the price available is lower than the price we can produce it at, we buy. When it’s higher, we pump our own.
    Pretty simple.
    When people in other parts of the world want computers and other things from us, they could (possibly) produce it themselves. However, because a lot of these countries have had idiotic left-wing economic policies, while others have hamstrung themselves with the primitive mental and social models of their dominant (and often only legal) religion, it’s very difficult and very expensive for them to produce the computers and other things. In fact, it’s more expensive for them to produce those things than for them to grow bananas or pump oil and exchange the goods.
    Therefore, trade benefits both parties. Us and them. They get access to goods that would otherwise be more expensive or impossible for them to produce (the production of which would actually impoverish their socieities even more, because it’s less efficient than trading), and we get access to goods that would otherwise be more expensive for us to produce.
    Many of us now talk of finding alternative ways of dealing with our energy needs because the network costs of dealing with Middle-Eastern oil are increasing the overall costs. Buying oil from the ME puts money in the hands of monsters, and we therefore have to subsidize our at-the-pump price with our battle-carrier-group costs.
    You self-proclaimed progressives have it all exactly backwards. We are in Iraq not to steal oil, but so that we – and the good ones there – can trade it in piece. We don’t want to have to nuke these people, and we don’t want to have to keep sending in the military to punish them. And they want to raise children in a hopeful society.
    Unfortunately, we have the problems we have, and we have to get through them. They’ll never have democracy and freedom and hope if we don’t exterminate the terrorists that float about and get support out of THE ENTIRE REGION. It’d be nice if you leftists would stand up on the side of progress and recognize that.
    Or you could just cry, “Social Justice!” in your most naive, self-righteous sophomore year of college tone of voice and be done with the hard thinking part.

  40. LOL says:

    wow dan way to keep it riehl
    you love the reporting of a government-owned newspaper
    can we start calling you a fascist for real now?

  41. Charles Warren says:

    “And once we actually conquered Iraq (and yeah, even with IED’s and sectarian violence, we could impose our will, when and where we desire, if we really were the ruthless imperialist bastards you seem to think we are), what could possibly stop us from taking it? And yet, counter to that fable, things occurred that were directly opposite your rich fantasy: the price of oil sky rocketed due to the market’s insecurity; rather than make off with their wealth, we have spent considerable amounts of our own and we haven’t yaken one barrel from the Iraqi people. Please Charles, write like a grown up.”
    Njoriole, you are one pure idiot.
    In the run up to this war, weren’t the neocons promising that it would pay for itself by America furiously pumping Iraqi oil thereby glutting the oil market and breaking OPEC ? Weren’t the neocons promising a cheap oil boom ?
    They failed. “What could stop us from taking it ?” Idiot, remember all those pipeline explosions ? 140,000 troops weren’t enough to secure the entire country and secure the oil facilities at the same time. The neocons let Chalabi sucker them into thinking cheering crowds would welcome American troops and occupation would be easy. It isn’t that they didn’t want to control Iraqi oil. They just plain failed.

  42. Charles Warren says:

    “You’re right Charles. They’re duking it out in the WTC, not Times Square.”
    Willis, do you have any contact with objective reality ? Even by neocon standards that was delusional.

  43. The fact that there are “fierce clashes” taking place in Ramadi at this late date four years into the war is anything but good news.

  44. The Soviets rolled into Afghanistan and installed their puppet government in a matter of weeks. Our “victory” in Afghanistan is identical to that of the Soviets.
    The Soviet experience in Afghanistan is yet another classic example of “win the war, lose the peace.”
    Don’t wingnuts learn from history?