Fifteen die as US helicopter downed
-
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3234543.stm
Fifteen American soldiers have been killed and 21 wounded in an attack on a US military helicopter in Iraq, the US military has confirmed.
It is the highest number of casualties suffered by the US-led coalition in a single incident since Saddam Hussein was toppled in April.
The helicopter came down in a cornfield near the flashpoint town of Falluja, 50 kilometres (32 miles) west of the capital.
Later the US Army said two US civilian contractors working for it in Falluja were killed by a roadside bomb.
The improvised device exploded as their truck was passing by. Another civilian was injured in the blast, a spokesman said.
Iraqi witnesses said the helicopter was hit by one of two surface-to-air missiles fired at it, but the US military has not confirmed the cause.
One military spokesman said the helicopter was hit by an "unknown weapon", but later, the military said it might have crashed while taking evasive action.
"We are aware of eyewitnesses seeing what they presumed to be missile trails," US army Colonel William Darley told reporters.
'Tragic day'
The helicopter was one of two twin-rotor Chinooks flying nearly 60 personnel from a US military base to Baghdad International Airport, from where they were due to fly abroad for rest and recreation.
Sunday marked the start of an expanded leave programme for US personnel - many of whom have been in the region for more than a year.
The helicopter was almost totally destroyed in the incident, which happened at about 0900 (0600 GMT). Television pictures showed US personnel recovering the dead and wounded from smoking debris.
Responding to the news, US Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld said the US would continue its war on global terror and efforts to stabilise Iraq.
"Clearly it is a tragic day for Americans," Mr Rumsfeld told ABC television.
"In a long hard war we are going to have tragic days."
Some Iraqis in Falluja expressed delight at Sunday's attack.
"The Americans are pigs. We will hold a celebration because this helicopter went down - a big celebration," an Iraqi farmer near the crash site told Reuters news agency.
The downing of the helicopter was one of a number of attacks on US forces in Iraq on Sunday.
One American soldier died when his convoy was attacked in the early hours in Baghdad.
Falluja lies within the so-called "Sunni triangle" of central Iraq - a largely Sunni Muslim area where resistance to the US-led coalition's occupation has been intense.
US military officials have repeatedly warned that hundreds of surface-to-air missiles remain unaccounted for in Iraq.
The Chinook, which has a crew of four, is a heavy-lift helicopter used primarily for moving troops and transporting artillery.
Intensified attacks
A total of 138 American troops have now been killed in attacks since US President George W Bush declared major combat operations over on 1 May - more than died in the war itself.
Attacks on coalition troops have intensified in the past week, reaching an average of more than 30 a day.
The BBC's Jill McGivering in Baghdad says the planning and execution of some recent attacks has led to speculation the militants opposed to the coalition have now formed into a more cohesive, better organised force.
There had been rumours that this weekend would see co-ordinated attacks on coalition targets.
A senior British member of the Coalition Provisional Authority in Iraq, Sir Jeremy Greenstock, told the BBC that the people carrying out the attacks were a "nasty mix".
He said they were supporters of former Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein, "imported terrorists", and criminals released from jail by the former regime before it fell.
Sunday's incidents follow an announcement by the chief US administrator in Iraq, Paul Bremer, that he wants to accelerate the handover of authority to Iraqis. -
US resolute after 'tragic day'
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3235989.stm
Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld has vowed the United States will stay in Iraq until the battle is won, despite the loss of 18 US lives in one day.
"In a long hard war, we are going to have tragic days," Mr Rumsfeld said.
In the heaviest US losses since the height of the war, 15 soldiers were killed and 21 wounded when a Chinook helicopter was downed near Falluja.
US military officials and witnesses said the giant aircraft had been shot down early on Sunday.
And in Falluja itself, a roadside bomb killed two American civilian contractors while another soldier was killed by a bomb in Baghdad.
The US opposition has cited the latest casualties as evidence that President Bush's policies in Iraq are failing.
There had not been such loss of American life on one day in Iraq since 23 March - during the war to oust Saddam Hussein - when 28 soldiers were killed in various clashes, 18 of them in a single battle at Nasiriya.
Iraqis in Falluja - a centre of opposition to the US-led occupation - openly welcomed the American casualties.
"This was a new lesson from the resistance, a lesson to the greedy aggressors," one Iraqi told AP news agency in Falluja.
At the scene of the roadside bomb, Iraqis danced on the wreckage and one youth sported a US helmet.
Missile threat
Mr Rumsfeld said he accepted that troops faced a continuing risk of attack, including that of surface-to-air missiles (SAMs).
"We've known about surface-to-air missiles since before we went in," he said.
"They are dangerous and they exist in that country in large numbers, as they do in that part of the world. So it's always a risk."
Hundreds of SAMs, mainly Russian-made, are said to be still scattered across Iraq despite a coalition campaign to collect them with a reward of $500 offered per missile.
Paul Bremer, the US civil administrator in Iraq, suggested on Sunday that the situation was "getting worse".
"We've seen a much more sophisticated use of improvised explosive devices against coalition forces," he said.
'Misled into war'
One of the leading contenders for the Democrat candidacy in next year's US presidential election, Wesley Clark, launched a stinging attack ion the Bush administration's record in Iraq after Sunday's attacks.
"We were misled into this conflict without a real strategy for success," Mr Clark, a former commander of Nato, told the Associated Press.
Another Democrat contender, Dick Gephardt, called on President Bush to treat other foreign leaders "with respect" and seek their help to end the conflict.
Meanwhile, the US Senate, which is investigating US intelligence used to justify the war in Iraq, received a promise from the government on Sunday that it would be given all the files it had requested.
The head of the committee, Senator Pat Roberts, said he had been told that all the documents required would be made available, but he did not say when.
A leading Democrat on the Senate committee said he would only be satisfied once the documents had actually been received. -
real chinook down ......
-
Analysis: US forces under fire
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3235041.stm
By Jonathan Marcus
BBC Defence Correspondent
This is not the first time Iraqi guerrilla fighters have brought down an American helicopter, but in terms of American casualties, it is the single most costly attack since the toppling of Saddam Hussein's regime.
Helicopters are an essential element of America's military operations in Iraq.
But while large lumbering aircraft like the Chinook are essential for transport purposes, helicopters are inherently vulnerable to ground fire.
This was shown dramatically during the invasion of Iraq, when a large offensive by a unit of much more agile American attack helicopters had to be aborted due to the intensity of anti-aircraft fire.
That episode prompted the military authorities in a number of countries to look again at the much-vaunted qualities of the modern attack helicopter.
But for current operations in Iraq the helicopter is irreplaceable.
In practical terms, US commanders will want to review the way in which helicopters are operated to see if anything can be done to make them less vulnerable. There may be calls for counter-measures against attack to be improved.
But helicopters can easily be shot down by small, portable surface-to-air missile systems.
There is no easy answer, as there is no easy remedy to the problems of roadside ambushes using rocket-propelled grenades or previously planted bombs.
Public pressure
The shooting-down of the Chinook though could have significant symbolic importance, not least in the United States itself.
On a visit to the Mid-West only a few weeks ago, the television stations were full of news reports with anguished relatives of soldiers in Iraq eager for their return and angered by the Pentagon's decision to extend tours of duty, especially for reservists.
The steady trickle of casualties - almost daily deaths - has so far prompted only limited calls for disengagement from Iraq. But a presidential election is looming, and casualties are mounting.
More US troops have been killed since "peace" was declared than died in hostilities during the invasion of Iraq itself.
American attitudes are complex. Ordinary Americans do not want to see their army chased out of Iraq. Many people still feel, as does President George Bush, that there is a job to be done.
But there is a growing gap between the Bush administration's claims of success in the rebuilding effort and the sorts of news stories that most Americans see.
The administration has chosen to blame the messengers - the media - for somehow distorting things.
But however localised the US military's problems are in Iraq, those problems are real enough. The steady return of body-bags to the US proves that.
In Iraq itself this episode will only add to perceptions of US vulnerability. But the calculations here are equally complex.
Shadowy opposition
Recent bomb attacks by Iraqi insurgents have killed more ordinary Iraqis than Americans.
It is not clear who exactly is behind these attacks. And it is equally unclear in whose name they are being carried out.
In this sense it is hard to speak of "an Iraqi resistance".
There are clearly loyalists who miss the old regime; there may well be foreign fighters who have come into the country specifically to target Americans, as the Pentagon asserts.
But how far such groups can claim real public support is hard to say. Many Iraqis may be unhappy with the US presence and alarmed by the uncertainties and insecurities that "liberation" has brought.
But this does not necessarily mean they support a full-scale guerrilla war against the Americans and certainly not a guerrilla war where, as often as not, the casualties are Iraqi rather than American. -
Firstly, condolences to the families of the dead and wounded, its a tragic day indeed that this is still happening.
But I would like to take this incident to end my silence over my reservations of sending of SAF soldiers to Iraq. No, not merely because they will be in the line of fire, as I fully support our other peacekeeping commitments in Timor Leste etc.
My reservations stem from the fact that 1) I still consider the invasion of Iraq outside of UN mandate as an illegal invasion (as long as huge stockpiles of WMD are not found) and 2) I'm still of the opinion that policymakers in the US (who lead the "peacekeeping" operations in Iraq) are clueless as to how to proceed, what/who they're up against (Easy to mumble "Al-Qaeda" foreign jihadis but I've a nagging suspicion its more complicated than that).
I can accept having our peacekeepers doing their duty under risk, but in this case, I consider it unnecessary risk, as well as the circumstances which put them there in the first place as very dubious at best. I wish our peacekeepers the best, and hope they stay safe. -
i tot chinook got armour
-
got armor but the side profile is a bit too big and thus easy target for rockets' attacks.
-
Just curious , did any reports say what type of SAM did the chinook was shot by ? IGLA maybe ? . What i feel is that its way too risky for the americans to get around iraq , RPG attacks on convoys , SAM attacks on air units . Maybe singapore should reconsider its deployment of troops and equipment , although small in number .
-
tragedy....
*.......................* moment of silence... -
My condolences.....
Agree with Viper 52 on this one...Well, the U.S. wanted a war right? Then they've got themselves a war now...guerilla war. Good luck and have fun trying to democratize a hostile population...
Can't blame our gov't too much for sending the SAF there...how do you think we got our FTA with the U.S.? -
LA times writes:Originally posted by KiloClass:Just curious , did any reports say what type of SAM did the chinook was shot by ? IGLA maybe ? . What i feel is that its way too risky for the americans to get around iraq , RPG attacks on convoys , SAM attacks on air units . Maybe singapore should reconsider its deployment of troops and equipment , although small in number .
"Witnesses said the missile hit the tail of the aircraft as it flew east, suggesting that the missile used was a heat-seeker such as a Russian-made SA-7 or Strela."
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fg-chinook3nov03,1,807468.story?coll=la-headlines-world-manual -
Yea i agree with Viper.....and also since it is outside UN we'd be picking up the tab ourselves!!!And it's not like we(as in the people) supported this war anyway!I find it interesting abt the lack of outcry frm the public over this...
-
can RPG down choppers? because in black hawk down, the black hwak was down by RPGs..........
-
Tango1, DO NOT, for a single minute, believe the crap the governments arsewipes (more commonly known as the mainstream Singapore press) spew out to make you think that supporting the war has any benefits for Singapore, economic or otherwise.Originally posted by Tango1:Can't blame our gov't too much for sending the SAF there...how do you think we got our FTA with the U.S.?
Remember just before the war, when Singapore and Chile's FTA with the US were up for finalisation. Singapore supported the war, while Chile voted against the war in the UNSC. The local arsewipes crowed about how "differently" both countries were treated by the US and that Chile's FTA might be "under threat". Well look what happened, Singapore's and Chile's FTA with the US in the end were ratified by the Yanks ON THE SAME DAY!
So Ah Goh got to pose with Georgie-boy on the White House signing the FTA, while Chile got to sign it with some kucing kurup US Trade Rep in a kucing kurup US state. Big f***ing deal. The substance is still the same. Its the substance that counts in the end, not the style
The difference is that Chile stuck by its morals, our dear government sold ours down the river. For the exact same result (substance-wise at least) -
What did you expect, when the gahment in this here Paradise Island decided that 6 people gathering for a protest against the war (before it started) were a threat to "law and order" and worth arresting and manhandling?Originally posted by |-|05|:I find it interesting abt the lack of outcry frm the public over this...
Did you expect Singaporeans against the war to speak out in public, when over here "Its the government's way or the Pan Island Expressway (straight into Changi)?"
I find the treatment here of alternative viewpoints (of any sort) downright disgusting and embarrassing, for a country which likes to claim itself as among the best. -
Viper52, hahaha! Relax, I never believed anything on SG's mainstream press at face value unless its really factual information, like "23 individuals were caught littering today..."Originally posted by Viper52:Tango1, DO NOT, for a single minute, believe the crap the governments arsewipes (more commonly known as the mainstream Singapore press) spew out to make you think that supporting the war has any benefits for Singapore, economic or otherwise.
Remember just before the war, when Singapore and Chile's FTA with the US were up for finalisation. Singapore supported the war, while Chile voted against the war in the UNSC. The local arsewipes crowed about how "differently" both countries were treated by the US and that Chile's FTA might be "under threat". Well look what happened, Singapore's and Chile's FTA with the US in the end were ratified by the Yanks ON THE SAME DAY!
So Ah Goh got to pose with Georgie-boy on the White House signing the FTA, while Chile got to sign it with some kucing kurup US Trade Rep in a kucing kurup US state. Big f***ing deal. The substance is still the same. Its the substance that counts in the end, not the style
The difference is that Chile stuck by its morals, our dear government sold ours down the river. For the exact same result (substance-wise at least)...but other than that, I always take political news with a huge dose of unrefined sea-salt...
You are quite right about this issue...but what I actually meant to convey was the fact that it wasn't the economic benefits so much so as the caving in to diplomatic "arm-twisting" that went on...of cos' we caved in to it, selling morals and the whole 9 yards down with it, but why?
I'm no big supporter of the Bush administration, but you know as well as many of us do, that the return of neo-conservatism into global politics (esp with the U.S.) creates typical "us & them" divisions. The SG gov't is trying to reap bigger benefits (or so they perceive) from these divisions. Chile is right in their region; the U.S. depend upon Chile both as a sources of cheap primary products, but also as a bargaining leverage to keep wages comparatively low in other primary product producers in the Americas.
As for us? What are our primary resources that the U.S. cannot find elsewhere? Certainly not fuel, food, or potable water. Skilled/unskilled labour? Plenty of that in China, India, Vietnam. Military bases? Why not in Thailand then?
S'pore surrendered considerable autonomy in its foreign affairs dealing by having this FTA deal with the U.S. I wonder if it was a Democratic gov't in place next year, would the SG gov't sing a different tune again?