Falluja tactics - Bush people, justify this.

p.pete

I apologise for not having the time to read through the thread - The Iraqi government has endorsed the actions, isn't that justification enough?


<edit> Note - may contain traces of both Nuts and sarcasm. </edit>

sovtek

Redleslie2 wrote:

Reuters report: Iraqi Officer Deserts with U.S. Falluja Battle Plan.



Maybe the plan involves having the Iraqi dudes walk slowly through the city drawing rebel fire and clearing booby traps by getting blown up before the marines go in.

I wonder if it was called "Operation: Get Behind the Darkies"

sovtek

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.

Makes for a great discussion forum then eh? I guess we should all just sit here and look at the screen then....
*blink**blink**blink*

Flukey

p.pete wrote:

I apologise for not having the time to read through the thread - The Iraqi government has endorsed the actions, isn't that justification enough?

Yes, Saddam's government endorsed their actions, so why did his actions need to be questioned?

ionapaul

Yep, Germany, Austria and Japan were on the top of my list of countries where imposed democracy went down a treat. I see the point you are making too, but I am saying just because democracy is imposed, doesn't make it a bad thing!

ionapaul

sovtek wrote:

I wonder if it was called "Operation: Get Behind the Darkies"

That is *exactly* what I thought when I first heard that the American forces were accompanied by a few Iraqi battalions. Obviously they are there primarily for PR, rather than military, reasons. Hopefully they will not be involved in the heaviest fighting - I think everyone involved (bar the insurgents maybe) would prefer the Marines to go in first...even the Marines probably want this!

pork99

sovtek wrote:

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.

Well we should know from this country how much trouble you can cause with a small number of people dedicated to political violence - the IRA probably never had more that 400 or 500 active members in the 70s and 80s.

As for turning them in - well if you lived in NI back then, did not sympathise with the IRA, in fact wished they would just cease and desist, and you knew your neighbour was active in the IRA, the implications for your general health and longevity of turning that person in would be very grave.

pork99

ionapaul wrote:

Yep, Germany, Austria and Japan were on the top of my list of countries where imposed democracy went down a treat. I see the point you are making too, but I am saying just because democracy is imposed, doesn't make it a bad thing!

But those cultures either had a previous history of democracy, in the cases of Germany and Austria or traditions of public order and obedience to authority, in the case of Japan, which made the "imposition" of democracy possible. The word that comes to mind in the current Iraq adventure is "Quixotic"

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=quixotic

Flukey

Iraq and the Middle East in general is a different type of society than the west, so you can't just come in and put in a western system on them. A new system has to be brought in steadily and put in place with the support of the local people. They have to devise their own democratic system. They don't know what democracy is and have no concept of it, which is why we were told they needed it. We know that, but they don't. Many of them would never have heard of it and not know anything about what it is and its benefits etc. You can't just put it in place without first educating the people. Many would be educated and know what it is but if it is going to be brought into the country as a whole and everyone is going to be able to participate, it is not enough that some of the more educated classes know what it is about. You have to start from the ground up. There are probably some local structures there akin to democracy, where a local group have an agreed leader, but they would not know that as being democracy. You can start from there though.

European countries, and even to a small extent Japan, had at least some idea of what democracy was and some had used the system before, but it is something totally new to countries like Iraq and Afghanistan. Basic things, like the fact that many people are illiterate, need to be dealt with first. You've got to explain democracy at local levels. It is not an organised society. It is not like the west. It is full of factions and tribes so any outside influence is looked on with more suspicion, even something from a neighbouring tribe, never mind an outside country. Many don't even have a concept of a country, but just the local area they live in. Countries and borders were devised by the west all over Africa, which had no real meaning to the local people and that is why a lot of trouble still exists. It is a lovely idea to go and bring democracy to a country and free them, but even under Saddam's rule a lot of them would not have thought of themselves as not being free and not just those who supported Saddam. So it is not a simple thing to bring it in and it is harder to do so in a place like Iraq, than it was in a more developed western nation.

Gurgle

ionapaul wrote:

Yep, Germany, Austria and Japan were on the top of my list of countries where imposed democracy went down a treat. I see the point you are making too, but I am saying just because democracy is imposed, doesn't make it a bad thing!

Democracy wasn't exactly new to Germany or Austria at the time though.

sovtek

pork99 wrote:

Well we should know from this country how much trouble you can cause with a small number of people dedicated to political violence - the IRA probably never had more that 400 or 500 active members in the 70s and 80s.

As for turning them in - well if you lived in NI back then, did not sympathise with the IRA, in fact wished they would just cease and desist, and you knew your neighbour was active in the IRA, the implications for your general health and longevity of turning that person in would be very grave.

Ok fair enough...although NI wasn't being occupied in the sense that Iraq is and Iraq is far bigger with a larger population.
That would also have to ignore the polls that show that they average Iraq is against the occupation.

sovtek

Gurgle wrote:

Democracy wasn't exactly new to Germany or Austria at the time though.

It wasn't exactly democratic in the beggining either. The Communists were routed out wherever possible in Western Europe as well as Japan.

ionapaul

I suppose you could argue that Germany never had a particularly good tradition of democracy pre-WWII. Despite that fact, and acknowledging the differences between Iraqi and the West or Japan, I just think it is short-sighted to equate 'imposed democracy' with failure. Not that I am amazingly confident of the success of the current 'democracy experiment' in Iraq either!

bonkey

ionapaul wrote:

I just think it is short-sighted to equate 'imposed democracy' with failure.

Fair point.

Would you see any distinction between imposing democracy (or any other form of rule) on an unsuccessful invader who was beaten back vs imposing democracy (or any other form of rule) on a conquered nation who you attacked???

I would....but thats just me. I can't think of a single modern nation which was invaded, conquered, and a new government put in place where the people were happy about it, or even where the imposed government wasn't an unmitigated disaster. And no...I don't include either Iraq or Afghanistan as both of those are very much works-in-progress. I'm not saying there aren't any, mind....but I just can't think of any.

jc

AmenToThat

p.pete wrote:

I apologise for not having the time to read through the thread - The Iraqi government has endorsed the actions, isn't that justification enough?

When said "government" is hand picked by invading force and is made up mostly of people many of whom havnt lived in Iraq for upto 20 years.
Several of whom had at one time links with Saddams regime and for the most part have very small national support or political party structures then I would have to conclude ...........no, thats not justification enough.

chill

bonkey wrote:

Would you see any distinction between imposing democracy (or any other form of rule) on an unsuccessful invader who was beaten back vs imposing democracy (or any other form of rule) on a conquered nation who you attacked???

I would suggest that the truth is that there is no such thing as 'imposing' democracy. It is a contradition in terms.

bonkey

chill wrote:

I would suggest that the truth is that there is no such thing as 'imposing' democracy. It is a contradition in terms.

I think you'll find that this is the underlying reason most critics of US policy in Iraq say that it's an ill-conceived plan.

Unless you subscribe to the "hasn't-a-shred-of-evidence-to-support-it" that the Iraqi's actually really want democracy, and its those foreign terrorists in IRaq that are doing all the fighting...

....which, incidentally, is a bit of a condemnation of how sh1t a job the US did in figuring out who the resistance would be and where it would come from. If they can't secure Iraq's borders, what chance have they in the country at large.

But I'm sure you can explain that one away with more of your spin and evidenceless "truth".

jc

ionapaul

So are you saying that the average Iraqi *doesn't* want democracy? Personally, I don't believe this. It is extremely hard for any of us to say for definite what the Iraqi on the street really wants - they don't have a voice (and I certainly don't believe the clerics can be relied upon to correctly represent the average Iraqi, devout though they may be). Has anyone access to opinion polls (how valid are opinion polls taken in Iraqi at the moment?) showing Iraqi feelings on democracy?
Obviously someone will reply that I don't understand the differences between the West and the rest of the world (which I find a little condecending tbh!) or the intricacies of the Iraqi culture, but numerous non-Western peoples have embraced democracy (sometimes on a limited scale, yes) in the past 100 years.

bonkey

ionapaul wrote:

So are you saying that the average Iraqi *doesn't* want democracy?

No, I'm saying that we don't know that they do and at best we assume it.

It is extremely hard for any of us to say for definite what the Iraqi on the street really wants

My point exactly. So when we try and institute democracy, how exactly do we know whether or not it is wanted? We don't. We can't. The assumption is made that we know what is best for them (because we believe its best for us), and we're going to give it to them. Whether or not its what they want is irrelevant. Its what they should have.

In my world, that qualifies as the imposition of our solution on their problem. That doesn't make it the wrong solution necesasrily...but it does make it an imposed one.

they don't have a voice

Well, some people have voiced their opinion in the only way they know how....through violent opposition. However, they apparently get dismissed en masse as terrorists...and indeed some people (/me nods in CHill's direction) believe they are mostly foreign and the solution is that they should be slaughtered en masse.

So, apparnetly, opposing the new system makes you a terrorist who deserves to die. When you look at it that way, its even harder for me to understand how its not the imposition of a solution.

but numerous non-Western peoples have embraced democracy (sometimes on a limited scale, yes) in the past 100 years.

Yes indeed they have.

They have generally not, however, had someone come in, depose their existant ruler, and tell them how they are going to be democratically ruled in future regardless of how that sits with them, and without ever asking them.

<edit>
Those that have had this done to them are almost entirely defeated aggressors - people who invaded another nation, were defeated, and forced to suffer the consequences.
(/me awaits people claiming - as a means of satisfying this description - that the real reason for Gulf2 was that Saddam invaded Kuwait over a decade ago
</edit>
Now there are some exceptions. One could argue that Ireland had democracy imposed on it, as we were conquered by a nation which became democratic while we were ruled by it, and we had that system of government imposed on us. Was that a good thing? Yes, once we made it our democracy. Did it stop us rebelling against the English? No, it didn't. Not in the slightest. Does this mean that every Irishman who took up arms against he English was a terrorist who hated freedom and should have been slaughtered? Not in my book, but Chill's logic would seem to point in that direction.

jc

Memnoch

bonkey wrote:

In my world, that qualifies as the imposition of our solution on their problem. That doesn't make it the wrong solution necesasrily...but it does make it an imposed one.

jc

I agree bonkey

I find the entire concept of an "imposed democracy" as utterly paradoxical AND laughable. How can it be democracy if the iraqi people don't have any say in it in the first place? We have an interim government selected by a council appointed by the US. So essentially its a puppet government. This puppet government will select the candidates that will run in the "elections".

The way I see it, adding more links to the chain of "puppets" does not a democracy make. If we were to truly allow the iraqi's democracy then there is no doubt in my mind that the result would be a muslim fundamentalist state. Off course the "west" doesn't want that.

But I think its high time we stopped playing word games, and call the iraqi "government" for what it really. An imposed dictatorship whose only real authority is the power to slaughter all who oppose them.

Gurgle

bonkey wrote:

Does this mean that every Irishman who took up arms against he English was a terrorist who hated freedom and should have been slaughtered?
jc

I wonder how they were portrayed in the Brittish press at the time.

ionapaul

But do you not think the 'puppet government' is merely the first step towards democracy? Just like Ireland's home state government was going to be the first step towards total independence? Maybe our differing views can be put down to my belief that the Americans truly hope to foster democracy in Iraq and (while covering their own ass and protecting their interests, as is natural) would like an Iraq that is a better place for the average Iraqi to live in than Saddam's regime. Perhaps others here are much more suspicious of the Allied motives and long-term plans for the Iraqi people. Memnoch, you obviously see the current 'imposed dictatorship' to be as bad (worse?) than Saddam's dictatorship. I respectfully disagree.
Since we agree that there is no way to be sure of what exactly the Iraqi people want with regards to democracy or political structure, we will have to agree to disagree on their potential interest in democracy.

sovtek

ionapaul wrote:

But do you not think the 'puppet government' is merely the first step towards democracy?

Not when the PM of the puppet government summarily executes and participates in the slaughter of the residence of a whole town.
It's also telling how the state assets of Iraq were put up for sale immediately as well as keeping the Iraqi defense department under control of the Americans (no matter who wins in Jan).
Is anything the CPA done so far suggest that Iraq will have true soveriegnty after the election of handpicked candidates in Jan?
Hell Sadr just merely suggested that car bombings were the work of the CIA and he got attacked immediately (instead of immediately descredited by the American run media in Iraq...which makes ya think) and wasn't allowed into the political process (even though his resistance gained him alot of support throughout Iraq).
Now I honestly ask does this show any good faith on the part of America in truly bringing democracy to the people of Iraq?

Frank Grimes

Looks like this whole thing has been a resounding success already

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/3998049.stm

Lt Gen Thomas Metz, the multinational ground force commander in Iraq, warned of "several more days of tough urban fighting" ahead, adding that rebel leaders such as Abu Musab al-Zarqawi - America's most wanted man in Iraq - appeared to have fled before the assault began.

Maybe they'll have more time to look for WMD now.

chill

ionapaul wrote:

So are you saying that the average Iraqi *doesn't* want democracy? Personally, I don't believe this. It is extremely hard for any of us to say for definite what the Iraqi on the street really wants - they don't have a voice (and I certainly don't believe the clerics can be relied upon to correctly represent the average Iraqi, devout though they may be). Has anyone access to opinion polls (how valid are opinion polls taken in Iraqi at the moment?) showing Iraqi feelings on democracy?
Obviously someone will reply that I don't understand the differences between the West and the rest of the world (which I find a little condecending tbh!) or the intricacies of the Iraqi culture, but numerous non-Western peoples have embraced democracy (sometimes on a limited scale, yes) in the past 100 years.

Correct. And the only way to find out what they want to to enable them to vote......
But then again we don't have the evidence that the 'evidence police' demand to prove that they want a vote in the first place .................. makes a nonsense of that silly and self serving argument doesn't it..

:rolleyes:

chill

bonkey wrote:

Does this mean that every Irishman who took up arms against he English was a terrorist who hated freedom and should have been slaughtered? Not in my book, but Chill's logic would seem to point in that direction.

Only in your Orwellian language distorting world that you profess to belong to.

The idea that 'enabling' the people of Iraq to express what it is they want is an 'imposition' of democracy is to turn language on it's head, something you indulge in regularly.
In early 2005 the Iraqi people, those of whom that chose to, will vote what what it is 'they' wish to do with their country and then they will be free to run their country however they wish.
Those that are slaughtering Iraqi peopl with car bombs in the streets and ins chools, with roadside bombs aimed at innocent Iraqi children, are not fighting for 'freedom to chose' or the freedom of the Iraqi people. They are fighting to
stop the Iraqi people ever gaining that freedom. Perhaps you could offer evidence of how many of the irish civilian populous were slaughtered in this way by those fighting for our freedom ? Your point is empty because they morivations were clear and evident and stated. They fought for our freedom to chose, against an empire that would NOT allow us to chose - exactly the opposite to what is happening in Iraq.

It is a contradicition to suggest that a person can have the "power to choose" imposed on them, and it is more of a long standing patronising and insulting attitude to the people of the middle east when westerners suggest that these people are different from all others in that they don't want democracy or choice, or they may not 'want' freedom to chose and run their lives the way they choose. In effect this is an argument that only serves the agenda of the users of it.

The truth is that the Iraqi people are the same as every other group of human beings on this planet. They want to run their lives the way they chose to live it, and the result of this war will be that they will have been given that choice in spite of the anti war movement who wanted to leave them at the mercy of Saddams tortures and brutality and oppression.

bonkey

chill wrote:

makes a nonsense of that silly and self serving argument doesn't it..

:rolleyes:

Totally.

Its entirely eye-rollingly self-serving to complain about giving a different culture the solution we think they should have, based on our standards.

Oh...hang on....wouldn't that mean that its nothing but a self-serving argument to complain about a self-serving solution???

jc

bonkey

chill wrote:

The idea that 'enabling' the people of Iraq to express what it is they want is an 'imposition' of democracy is to turn language on it's head, something you indulge in regularly.

Turning language on its head...like when you tell us tehre is no objective information about something, and then progress to tell us what the truth of the situation is? Well at least I'm in good company.....

In early 2005 the Iraqi people, those of whom that chose to, will vote what what it is 'they' wish to do with their country and then they will be free to run their country however they wish.

As long as they choose from amongst the pre-vetted options made available to them, and accept that the system is going to be slanted to favour/protect minority groups rather than reflecting the wishes of the majority of the nation.

Those that are slaughtering Iraqi peopl with car bombs in the streets and ins chools, with roadside bombs aimed at innocent Iraqi children, are not fighting for 'freedom to chose' or the freedom of the Iraqi people. They are fighting to stop the Iraqi people ever gaining that freedom.

Some of them no doubt are, yes. Some of them are almost undoubtedly fighting because they believe the US is simply one oppressor replacing another. Some are presumably fighting because their belief-system says that the right type of leadership is the elder clerics who have spent a life figuring how mankind should best live his life, or something else other than the US-chosen flavour of democracy.

Your point is empty because they morivations were clear and evident and stated.

The point may be somewhat empty because in hindsight, those motivations and statements were shown to be true and in our interest, but at the time you had a self-appointed provisional government who fought against the established democracy, employed guerrilla tactics against said established democracy and killed anyone who collaborated with it that they deemed necessary. They professed to be fighting for our freedom, but many of those you brand terrorists in Iraq profess to be fighting for Iraq's freedom.

In other words, other than with the benefit of hindsight being applied, one can discount statements and look at actions and conclude that they were clearly murdering scum who hated freedom and who should be executed.....as long as applies the Chill-standard analysis techniques.

It is a contradicition to suggest that a person can have the "power to choose" imposed on them,

A person, perhaps. A nation is a different story, especially when the choices are being limited, as is the method in which those choices are made.

In America its apparently ok for the majority to use their religion to trample on whatever their religious beliefs say is wrong.

In Iraq, the majority have to be politically hobbled, lest they use their religious beliefs to the same end.

The Kurds in the north of Iraq want an independant state. This is denied to them, and the new "freedom to choose" will be structured in such a way as to ensure that they cannot obtain it.

So the "freedom" thats being offered to these people is really only the freedom to choose from amongst the options that the US is willing to let them have. And yet, if anyone in Iraq decides that this isn't enough and that they want to fight for the freedom to choose their own destiny full-stop-end-of-story.....well they're classed as murdering terrorists who hate freedom and should be slaughtered by your good self.

In effect this is an argument that only serves the agenda of the users of it.

Well why don't you tell me what my agenda is then Chill. Exactly what am I[]/i] trying to do? Keep the war going? Bring down America? Oppose freedom? Come on....I'm using this argument, so what is my agenda???

The truth is that the Iraqi people are the same as every other group of human beings on this planet. They want to run their lives the way they chose to live it,

And just like the Irish who rebelled against a democracy we had in place because it was not the system of our choosing, nor did it give us the true freedom to choose our own future.......

....the Iraqi's who do the same are terrorists.

jc

ionapaul

bonkey wrote:

And just like the Irish who rebelled against a democracy we had in place because it was not the system of our choosing, nor did it give us the true freedom to choose our own future.......

....the Iraqi's who do the same are terrorists.

What exactly is the relevance of the links you can draw between the insurgents (murdering Iraqi police and civilians in cold blood) and the Irish rebels of the 19th and 20th centuries (murdering Irish police and civilians in cold blood)? I don't think you can argue that the average Irish benefited from the actions of the Irish rebels - nor are or will the average Iraqi benefit from the actions of the insurgents, native-born or not.

narommy

From the indo's breaking news


Iraqi troops have found hostage slaughter houses in Fallujah.

Miliarty officials have said they also discovered CDs and records of people taken captive in kidnappings and beheadings.

The houses were located in the northern part of the city.

A military spokesman was unsure of the records included the name of Irish hostage Margaret Hassan.