Falluja tactics - Bush people, justify this.

ionapaul

Gurgle wrote:

IIRC, this whole war was about:
...
3. Remove Saddam Hussein.
Thats kind of the interesting one.
Why was he to be removed from power in the first place ?
- Invaded Kuwait, got chased out, went home. Well, what country hasn't chanced its arm invading the neighbours ?
- 'Murdered hundreds of his own people' - When they formed a rebellion against him.

Gee, Saddam the brutal dictator doesn't sound half bad when you put it that way. I might chance MY arm invading a neighbouring country tonight, for the laugh like. Never liked the Belgians, actually...:)

Redleslie2

Are we all agreed that "Operation Phantom Fury" is a stupid name for the assault even by TWAT's standards?

Unless the Iraqis have taken to wearing dinner jackets and theatrical masks while they scuttle about at night planting IEDs.


Evil insurgent uses woman as human shield.

ionapaul

And to think someone probably gets paid $100,000 / year to come up with these names...Off topic, my former employees (small company, 40 employees) in the States during the dotcom madness paid another company $20,000 for a new name and re-branding. The guy who did the naming was about 21 with a degree in mythology or something. Name was stupid and company still went bust.

Think the operation in Fallujah is kicking off at the mo...

SkepticOne

chill wrote:

Wrong. The 'insurgents' are foreign terrorists that have no interest in democracy and won't even be able to vote considering they are not even Iraqi.

I certainly think they could do with better PR. Kidnapping Margaret Hassan bringing ordinary Iraqis out into the streets in protest was a major boo boo that could have been avoided with a little advice.

Similarly when they executed the Nepalese workers it might have been better if they had not said "We have carried out the sentence of God against 12 Nepalese who came from their country to fight the Muslims and to serve the Jews and the Christians... believing in Buddha as their God". url=http://www.southasiamonitor.org/diplomacy/2004/aug/31dip6.html]source[/url

Flukey

They should call it:

Operation Iraqi Liberation.

After all, that is what this whole thing has been about from the start.

Sand

I certainly think they could do with better PR. Kidnapping Margaret Hassan bringing ordinary Iraqis out into the streets in protest was a major boo boo that could have been avoided with a little advice.

Similarly when they executed the Nepalese workers it might have been better if they had not said "We have carried out the sentence of God against 12 Nepalese who came from their country to fight the Muslims and to serve the Jews and the Christians... believing in Buddha as their God".

Sorry Skeptic but what makes you think they give a flying **** about public opinion? Either theyre religious fanatics - whose only responsibility is to their God, or theyre ex-Baathists - who arent used to consulting with the people, or most hopefully theyre ransom gangs - who only care about money but at least theyre more reasonable once they get their money.

These are terrorists were talking about here, not some bloody bunch of girl guides.

daveirl

This post has been deleted.

Moriarty

Flukey wrote:

They should call it:

Operation Iraqi Liberation.

After all, that is what this whole thing has been about from the start.

Saying it's all about oil is as wrong as saying it was all about weapons of mass destruction.

AmenToThat

daveirl wrote:

This post has been deleted.

All that kinda proves is just how stupid Bush and his backroom staff are really.

Flukey

Daveirl wrote:

That's facinating. You seem to live in an alternate universe with a different timeline. Saddam was President of Iraq from 1979 to 2003. Now since George H Bush didn't come to power until 1988, I find it very hard to see how he "put Saddam" in power.

No, I know what universe I am in. You are forgetting that George H. Bush had a senior position in the CIA in the late 70s and through this helped put Saddam into power. He was also the vice President under Reagan whose government supported Saddam against Iran. Amongst other ways of doing so, they sent one Donald Rumsfeld to Baghdad in 1983 to offer some of this support, namely arms!

Daveirl wrote:

Funny then, how there's no evidence to support that. Oil is currently at around $48 around $20 higher than before the war.

Well if you were in the oil business, like half of GWB's cabinet, you'd certainly be happy that the product you sell had increased in price. You'd be even more happier that you'd soon be in a position to control the supplies of one of the largest oil producers in the world. Get real Daveirl.

daveirl

This post has been deleted.

AmenToThat

Iv been listening to all this discussion about Fallujah and the supposed elections in January and think we are all brushing over one of the main issues if these elections even take place............

The most powerful voice among the Sunni is the Association of Muslim clerics, who by the way have ties to the insurgents.
In Shai areas religious parties are on the rise (Including Moqtada al Sadr) who has close links to the Iranians, but there are others.

Suppose in these "free and democratic" elections that in the Shai south and the Sunni heartland these religious parties who have been actively involved in the resistance gain power...........what then?

AmenToThat

daveirl wrote:

This post has been deleted.

Very true, however this thread is about the Iraqi conflict!
:rolleyes:

Flukey

What then Amen to that? The Americans will overthrow the government of course, or declare the elections flawed or whatever, of just not allow those candidates to stand in the first place.

daveirl

This post has been deleted.

AmenToThat

daveirl wrote:

This post has been deleted.

So you dont think the Americans and Brittish have messed up with regards to the Iraq war?

Flukey

Their first mistake was starting it and things have got worse ever since!

chill

Flukey wrote:

All that is true Gurgle and a lot more besides. Who put Saddam in power? George Bush Senior.

Are you serious ???

Saddam was criticised for having invaded his neighbours. He invaded two, which is less than some of his neighbours have. Of those two, one was done with the full support of the US, including military support, sent via the envoy of the US government, whose deputy was George Bush, one Donal Rumsfeld. As to the other one they invaded, had their biggest export been something like rice, the US would not have batted an eyelid.

Sounds like two damned good reasons to me.

Anyway the war did start and the more it has gone on the more the anti-war people have proved to have been right.

The anti war people have only proved to be one thing - indifferent, hypocritical and amoral.

Well in case you didn't know they went in and overthrew the existing government and are now trying to put one in place. I never said the people did not want democracy, but it is a matter for them to decide how to go about it.

Well actually you did. You said it was forced on them. How on earth could THEY decide while they were ruled by Saddam ? astonishing thought process....

The US and the other allies, can help and advise in that process, but it is a matter for the Iraqis alone as to how their democracy is formed and who will be part of the elected people. If they decided to elect a large amount of members of the Ba'ath party, do you think America would be happy with it?

It is up to the Iraqi people, and I would be astonished if the US would be any less happy than me if these nutters were elected, but there is nothing they will be able to do to stop it.

They've overthrown other democratic governments and you can be sure if they did not like what Iraq comes up with, they'd do the same there.

I look forward to your comments in a year's time.

[/QUOTE] Oh, so you've checked all their passports have you? Without doubt some are from outside, but many of the Iraqis will have joined them for the reasons that I and others have outlined.

If you have any evidence of this please supply it. When the bodies of the killed insurgents were examined after each battle the vast majority I believe were disscovered to be non iraqi.

No, Saddam was put in and supported by the US government,

Wrong.

While some of that is true, you'll also find that the Allied forces are, as you put it terrorising the civilian population by deliberately slaughtering them in their thousands. As a result they are also preventing many of the ordinary people of Iraq from gaining their freedom and democratic rights.

Well considering you believe so highly in referencing...maybe you could refernce this claim ? I don't believe a word of it is true, just total and complete fiction.

The terrorists most certainly have slaughtered the Iraqi people over the last year, but so have the allied forces.

Again a total fiction. Other than unavoidable situations the vast majority of which have been intentionally engineered by the Terrorists, this is is completely wrong. The Allied forces have not slaughtered any civilians. BUt that would upset the anti war propaganda wouldn't it. How unfortunate to have to cope with an army that is behaving so well.

Flukey

So not one single civilian has been killed by the allied forces and any that have been killed by the troops is the fault of the insurgents? Where do you get this stuff? Use your brain man! Basic common sense would tell you otherwise. The troops are killing people and not just insurgents. This is adding to the terrorism. Anyone, except you it seems, can see that. If you bomb a place people, insurgents and civilians, are going to be killed. I am sure you and your family and friends are all peace loving people, but if some of those friends or family were killed, you'd want to hit back. That is only human. You might not take up arms, but someone around you might well do.

Starting at the top of your post, yes George H. Bush, while in the CIA, did indeed help put Saddam in power and as vice president supported him, including the invasion of and war against Iran, which in recent years suddenly became called one of his crimes. Donald Rumsfeld, now one of his critics, was the envoy of the Reagan/Bush government that went over to Baghdad and help Saddam in a number of ways to wage that war, including giving them arms. In the last few years he turns around and criticises Saddam for a crime that they, and indeed he personally encouraged, supported and were an accessory to. You see nothing contradictory about that? I am not saying the war on Iran was a good thing and not a criminal act, but at one time Daddy Bush and Rumsfeld most certainly did.

Everything the anti-war people said has indeed proved to be true. There were no WMD's. Innocent civilians have been killed by the allies. The removal of Saddam did not bring instant stability. The allies did not leave as soon as they toppled Saddam. All the people did not welcome the troops. The one and only good thing that happened is that Saddam is gone, but that could have been done without an invasion, so even the removal of Saddam did not justify the war.

They had not much say under Saddam true and they still don't. America has decided to go in and install democracy, so it is being imposed on them. The Iraqi's are not having a chance to devise their own form of democracy. Democracy will be a good thing, but it has to be down to the Iraqis as to how that happens. Those decisions are being made for them, not by them. the current administration has been chosen by the allies, has it not?

AmenToThat

Flukey wrote:

So not one single civilian has been killed by the allied forces and any that have been killed by the troops is the fault of the insurgents? Where do you get this stuff? Use your brain man! Basic common sense would tell you otherwise.

As far as Im concerned this guy is on a mindless rant and I refuse to answer him anymore!
I respectfully suggest you do the same.

stagolee

AmenToThat wrote:

As far as Im concerned this guy is on a mindless rant and I refuse to answer him anymore!
I respectfully suggest you do the same.

well i respectfully choose to ignore that suggestion as i belive he makes a lot of very good points , alas as the events described happen either in a war zone or behind the closed doors of american govenment buildings hard evidence to back up either side of this argument is in short supply.

the one question that i have never heard a satisfactory answer to is in a world with so many corrupt and brutal reigimes why iraq in praticular was targeted? dont get me wrong im very happy that sadaam has been removed from power but there were atrocitys being committed in africa at the same time why did america not choose to remove those responsible for these from power (i saw on the tv the "evidence" of WMD colin powel showed the UN and i have to say it didnt appear to prove or even vaguley indicate anything)

Hobbes

Flukey wrote:

just not allow those candidates to stand in the first place.

They already did that some months ago.

ionapaul

Flukey wrote:

They had not much say under Saddam true and they still don't. America has decided to go in and install democracy, so it is being imposed on them. The Iraqi's are not having a chance to devise their own form of democracy. Democracy will be a good thing, but it has to be down to the Iraqis as to how that happens.

Not much of a fan of this 'imposed democracy is always bad' argument. Many of the countries to have democracy imposed on them post-WWII turned out just fine.

Gurgle

ionapaul wrote:

Not much of a fan of this 'imposed democracy is always bad' argument. Many of the countries to have democracy imposed on them post-WWII turned out just fine.

Forgive my historical ignorance but can you name some of those many countries ?

LegacyUser

prolly means Deutschland and Nippon

Gurgle

bananayoghurt wrote:

prolly means Deutschland and Nippon

I thought you were still on my ignore list.
I'll just go fix that.

Lemming

chill wrote:

Again a total fiction. Other than unavoidable situations the vast majority of which have been intentionally engineered by the Terrorists, this is is completely wrong. The Allied forces have not slaughtered any civilians. BUt that would upset the anti war propaganda wouldn't it. How unfortunate to have to cope with an army that is behaving so well.

Air-Strike
The infamous checkpoint family car slaughter
Military tactics slated for civilian deaths

*COUGH*COUGH*

Rose-tinted glasses etc etc.

sovtek

According to this militant= a young man.

Flukey

AmenToThat wrote:

As far as Im concerned this guy is on a mindless rant and I refuse to answer him anymore!
I respectfully suggest you do the same.

Simpler to do that than address the facts, isn't it? I have a mind and I have looked at the facts. I respectfully suggest you do the same.

sovtek

pork99 wrote:

Of course the bitterist resistance is from that section of the Iraqi population who were in power under Saddam and don't like the idea of losing their privileged position and are prepared to fight hard to get it back.

I guess that's why the Falluja imams refused Saddam to come and pray there?
Another thing that seems to pass attention is how these few elite fighting US occupation seem to be able to attack at will all over the country.
One would expect that if the average Iraqi didn't turn in these people that are "terrorising" them that would suggest AT LEAST indifference to what they are doing.