Falluja tactics - Bush people, justify this.

chill

bonkey wrote:

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.....

Perhaps you are just starting to learn about 'opinion'. That's what Boards is all about. My opinion of the the truth against yours. My arguments against yours. Most of the references used here are media ones that have extremely dubiousl reliablility.

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.

Sounds excellent to me, as it is in Norther Ireland and other countries who protect important minorities. And they will be free to change it once they have control. All in all an excellent situation.

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.

Which makes no sense considering the democracy that will be delivered to the people of Iraq will enable them to chose to be ruled by clerics or not. Those that are slaughtering their own people every day clearly don't want the people to be ABLE to chose.

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.

I would love to see any reference you have on this because I have NEVER seen any of these extreme groups claim to be fighting for Iraq's freedom.

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.

Person, country, nation, planet... it's all the same. They deserve and indeed have a right to chose. They are getting that right. The restrictions are normal, logical and reasonable as they are when applied in other countries.

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

Is it ? I don't agree.

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

Yes. As in other countries with major ethci and racial sub groups.

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.

Yes. This is a real-politic issue that matches many many othjer areas of thew world.

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.

If they slaughter hundreds of innocent people they are terrorists in an effort to stop their people being given ther power to chose how to live their lives then yes. You appear to have another more cuddly view of such slaughtering.

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???

I have no interest in your agenda, only your arguments and posts. I don't have the need to personalise arguments in the way that you appear to.

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.......

We had no democrcy and no choice so your question is moot.

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

None of them are fighting for freedom. None. They are fighting for oppression.

Redleslie2

chill wrote:

We had no democrcy and no choice so your question is moot.

Wrong there. Loads of (well, a few) Irish MPs were in westminster at the time. No home rule might be what you mean. But probably not.

Edit: Some Irish history for the benefit of Mr.Chill.

None of them are fighting for freedom. None. They are fighting for oppression.

Asked them have you?

dathi1

Person, country, nation, planet... it's all the same. They deserve and indeed have a right to chose. They are getting that right. The restrictions are normal, logical and reasonable as they are when applied in other countries.

you obviously no nothing of middle eastern history...as I said just before the invasion...: The under duress scam elections will provide the following result: Sunni puppet in Baghdad. Clerical dictatorship in the south..An independent Kurdistan in the North with its favoured US leader. More bull**** democracy US style in Iraq. I suppose you think the "elected" regime in Chechnya is democratic too? Bomb the **** out of Grozny..re invade and bomb the **** out of it again. Install a quisling scammer as leader via scam elections and declare it a democracy. I cant wait to see your reaction to the warlord local elections in Afghanistan next year.

bonkey

chill wrote:

Perhaps you are just starting to learn about 'opinion'.
...
I don't have the need to personalise arguments in the way that you appear to

Lets just ignore those contradictory first-and-last statements, shall we.

Sounds excellent to me,

And well it might.

People in a majority who are told that their democracy will not recognise the decision of the majority as binding may disagree. People not in a democracy being offered one which will similarly disenfranchise them might feel they'd be better off with a democracy which did recognise the majority (and thus disenfranchised others).

And they will be free to change it once they have control.

Will they? How? If the system is being set up to prevent simple "majority rule" from trampling on minorities....exactly how will that majority be free to democratically change things once they have control??? The system is being designed explicitly to prevent them from doing this.

All in all an excellent situation.

Again - as long as you're not one of the people losing out.

Which makes no sense considering the democracy that will be delivered to the people of Iraq will enable them to chose to be ruled by clerics or not.

Except that it will be delivered to the people of Iraq in such a manner as to not necessarily reflect the wishes of the majority.

Now ask yourself...why is this? Could it be because the system-builders are worried that the democratic majority might have it in for the minorities? Don't you see a contradiction in that? No matter which way it goes (majority-rules, or minority-protected), there are people alleged to want democracy, but who will not be given the demoracy they would want, nor will they be given a democracy that they have the power to reshape into what they want as they won't have the power to do that by simple majority!!!

Those that are slaughtering their own people every day clearly don't want the people to be ABLE to chose.

Again we're back to the old chestnut.

When the US kill civilians, its a tragic unavoidable reality of war which lessens in scale as weapons technology progresses.

When the US' opponents kill civilians, the same logic doesn't apply. We don't accept that less technology == inevitably more civilian deaths. Nope. They're slaughtering people deliberately and are terrorists.

I would love to see any reference you have on this because I have NEVER seen any of these extreme groups claim to be fighting for Iraq's freedom.

Mostly from real-time news (e.g. CNN broadcasts)...but I'm staggered you haven't heard any statements about how the insurgents/resistance/terrorists are fighting the US and its puppet interim government to remove them.

Is it ? I don't agree.

I did say apparently.

I was referring to the multitude of articles pointing to the notion that Christian Values was what swung the election for Bush....who now wants a constitutional amendment preventing gay marriage. Why? because his religion says its right.

Mr. Bush - and those who voted for him and against gay marriage - obviously sees nothing wrong in imposing his religiously-motivated majority-backed views on minority groups.

However, in Iraq, that won't be allowed to happen. Why? Because allowing religiously-motivated, majority backed views to be imposed on minorities is wrong.

If they slaughter hundreds of innocent people they are terrorists in an effort to stop their people being given ther power to chose how to live their lives then yes.

If they do that, then yes they are. Whether or not that is what they are doing is the question.

You appear to have another more cuddly view of such slaughtering.

No I don't.

I'm simply confronting what I see as contradictions - and I namely see two:

1) That we accept slaughter of civilians from the US as being unavoidable in the name of what it hopes to accomplish, but when their opposition kills anyone it gets classed as terrorism....or vice versa. (I'll quite happily take on anyone who insists that every US-caused death is wrong, and every resistance-caused one is right as being wrong as well.)

2) That the US is attempting to impose a form of democracy on another nation which is designed to prevent exactly the type of "unacceptable" situation that the US has just had - and will have again under President Bush - regarding the imposition of religiously-motivated restrictions on those who have different values/religions.

I have no interest in your agenda, only your arguments and posts. .

Then I'll kindly ask you to stop trying to knock them as being "an argument that only serves the agenda of the users of it". If you're not interested in it, then it has no place in your posts.

jc

A Dub in Glasgo

Redleslie2 wrote:

Wrong there. Loads of (well, a few) Irish MPs were in westminster at the time. No home rule might be what you mean. But probably not.

Not after the 1918 elections which the result was not recognised by Westminster

Redleslie2

Anyway, the guy who's reporting from inside Fallujah for the BBC, if he does indeed exist and isn't a figment of some Baghdad hotel bar bound drunken hack's imagination, made some interesting comments in his latest report that suggest that US casualties might be higher than they admit and the insurgents (or terrorists or whatever) might be a bit slippery.

I think it is misleading to say the US controls 70% of the city because the fighters are constantly on the move.

They go from street to street, attacking the army in some places, letting them through elsewhere so that they can attack them later.

Hobbes

There is murmur going on of the US using Gas+Chemical weapons in Falluja. (only seen one site report it though).

Redleslie2

A Dub in Glasgo wrote:

Not after the 1918 elections which the result was not recognised by Westminster

It was. SF didn't recognise westminster and set up the dail which wasn't recognised by the unionists.

A Dub in Glasgo

Semantics really as the majority of people on this island voted for an Irish Parliament. They did not vote for sending the minions to London. The British government did not recognise the will of the Irish people therefore they did not respect democracy.

Nuttzz

Hobbes wrote:

There is murmur going on of the US using Gas+Chemical weapons in Falluja. (only seen one site report it though).

:rolleyes: the US cant find wmd in Iraq so they will use them instead. The Gas was probably tear gas

I suspose this now make its 2 sites reporting it.....

Moriarty

Hobbes wrote:

There is murmur going on of the US using Gas+Chemical weapons in Falluja. (only seen one site report it though).

Took your time pulling that out Hobbes, I was expecting it within minutes of the first confirmed artillery rounds being fired.

sovtek

Hobbes wrote:

There is murmur going on of the US using Gas+Chemical weapons in Falluja. (only seen one site report it though).

Care to share?

Redleslie2

The BBC site reports that "US commanders say they now control 80% of the city and they expect major combat operations to be over soon."

Get that Mission Accomplished banner out again.

Moriarty

US political incompetence != US military incompetence

Sparks

That murmer of sarin gas turned out to be the discovery by the US of more testing kits to detect the presence of sarin gas (the labelling on the canisters was in farsi, but the name "Sarin" was the only word on them in english, so people started jumping to conclusions and spreading rumours). The report's on NPR here.

pork99

Flukey wrote:

What was their first target? The hospital. They didn't just bomb it, they levelled it. Ambulances were not even able to get out to help the casualties. They also did the same to a medical warehouse. So their tactics are, before attacking, to ensure casualties, including all the civilian ones, can't even be treated.

You are assuming they hit it deliberately

For example the USAF has managed to strafe a primary school in New Jersey while training;

No Excuse for Strafing School

woops! :rolleyes:

Sparks

Repeated strikes by multiple aircraft during daylight hours with full briefings beforehand does not compare to a single trainee pilot firing 25 rounds at the wrong target at night by accident pork.

pork99

Sparks wrote:

Repeated strikes by multiple aircraft during daylight hours with full briefings beforehand does not compare to a single trainee pilot firing 25 rounds at the wrong target at night by accident pork.

I don't know, remember that dramatic video of John Simpson and his BBC team getting blown up last year while covering the war in Northern Iraq? Full daylight, pilot brought onto target by a ground observer, still dropped his bombs a mile or two off target.

Besides which wasn't it on the news a couple of days ago that the Marines & Iraqi National Guards had captured the main hospital in Falluja more or less intact? http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/3991941.stm

Sparks

But that was again, one aircraft pork. And no, the main hospital wasn't the one targeted - but two or three emergency clinics have been targeted. (Fallujah's about the size of Cork, don't forget, not some tiny little hamlet in the middle of the desert).

pork99

Sparks wrote:

And no, the main hospital wasn't the one targeted - but two or three emergency clinics have been targeted.

found it
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/3988433.stm

The air strikes reduced the Nazzal hospital, run by a Saudi Arabian Islamic charity, to rubble.

A Saudi Arabian Islamic charity = a cover for Wahhabis?

If the intention was to deny medical care why didn't they target the main hospital in the same way?

pork99

My post from a week ago

pork99 wrote:

If they're smart they won't stay - they'll just melt away and sneak in to attack somewhere else the US aren't looking.

If I was in their position my thinking would be that as it's impossible the gain a tactical victory over the Americans, anyway that's not necessary for them as what you need to do is keep the war going until the political will of the US government to stay crumbles - so there is nothing to be gained in staying to fight a pitched battle where the Americans have the advantage (well it worked for the Vietnamese communists).

Of course if the Americans are smart they'll anticipate this.

What did I tell you?;

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/4009753.stm

pork99

Sparks wrote:

Fallujah's about the size of Cork

Not any more it's not

Sparks

pork99 wrote:

A Saudi Arabian Islamic charity = a cover for Wahhabis?

The red crescent is an islamic charity as well y'know.

A Dub in Glasgo

pork99 wrote:

Not any more it's not

:mad: crass comment and smilie

pork99

Personally I find this sort of comment crass;

SebtheBum wrote:

Make the Invaders bleed, insurgents...

America has lost more troops in Iraq since March 20th 2003 (first day of invasion) than it lost in the first 18 months of hostilities in Vietnam.

It is patently clear to even amateur military historians like myself, that the US and Britain* are fighting a war they cannot win

And I, an Englishman, support the freedom fighters of Iraq against an invading and occupying military machine.

The British Army in Malaysia in the 1950s won a counter-insurgency war under far more adverse circumstances.

At the height of the Vietnam War the US miliary was suffering 500 or 600 fatalities a month (or a week I forget which). They suffered the lower rate of casualties you are referring to while they had 17,000 "advisors" in Vietnam, from 1962 to 1964. From 1965 onwards when they sent major ground units to participate directly in the war their casualty rate shot up. I don't believe the Iraqi insurgents have the organisation and discipline of the Viet Cong and North Vietnamese Army, there are 50 or 60 different insurgent groups in Iraq ffs!

"Freedom fighters" who are out to wreck elections?;

http://www.kentucky.com/mld/kentucky/news/special_packages/iraq/10178489.htm

Civil authority appears to have all but vanished in some areas. In Haditha and Haqlaniya, neighboring towns 135 miles west of Baghdad, people say they are afraid to walk the streets. Insurgents sent a strong warning months ago after the U.S. military put a local tribal leader in control. Militants killed him and his sons.

The current chairman of the city council, Khaled Hussein, who has the approval of the insurgents, painted a bleak picture of life in the city. He spoke about a weekend attack on two police stations in the towns, in which 22 police officers were killed. Some were handcuffed, then executed.

It will be a disaster for Iraq if people like this prevail.

The attitude of SebtheBum's post reminds me of Noam Chomsky's "the much misunderstood Khmer Rouge" position.

Of course this is a situation that should not have come about in the first place and is a product of the incompetent handling of the immediate post-invasion situation there. But that's spilt milk - I hope the victory in Falluja is the beginning of the end for the Saddamite insurgency but I have a bad feeling that we are in for at least another 4 years of "deja vu all over again" in the news from Iraq.

bonkey

pork99 wrote:

It will be a disaster for Iraq if people like this prevail.

Yes indeed. Unfortunately, that would seem to hint that it will be a disaster for Iraq if the occupying coalition doesn't figure out what its done wrong to allow these people get to the position where we even talk about them prevailing...

Of course this is a situation that should not have come about in the first place and is a product of the incompetent handling of the immediate post-invasion situation there.

Agred.

But that's spilt milk

Also agreed.

- I hope the victory in Falluja is the beginning of the end for the Saddamite insurgency but I have a bad feeling that we are in for at least another 4 years of "deja vu all over again" in the news from Iraq.

Well, I see little new in Fallujah. Its yet another big operation to clean up yet another area which has been allowed to get way out of hand. It is by no means the last area, nor does it appear to have been anything like the size of fight the allies (or their media reporters) thought it would be.

The real crunch will come when the operation in Fallujah declared "over", and we get to see how much victory was really obtained, and at what price. Only then can we genuinely get an idea of whether this is a new tactic that could work....or just a continuation of the belief in peace through superior firepower which would seem to be the main failing of the entire invasion from my perspective.

jc

SkepticOne

bonkey wrote:

The real crunch will come when the operation in Fallujah declared "over", and we get to see how much victory was really obtained, and at what price. Only then can we genuinely get an idea of whether this is a new tactic that could work....or just a continuation of the belief in peace through superior firepower which would seem to be the main failing of the entire invasion from my perspective.

Well, there were news reports that the marines estimated they got about a thousand insurgents in their recent activities in Fallujah. The same troops estimated that they were fighting around three thousand, so a fair number remain probably in hiding. And this does not account for those that left incognito during the weeks preceding the action many of whom are likely now to be in Mosul. So under no circumstances could they say that they have solved the problem. If they can hold the town, however, they can say that they have eliminated one area that was being used by insurgents and islamist fanatics with impunity. From the point of view of the occupying forces, no town of this size can be allowed to be controlled by rebels. Whether a greater problem has been created elsewhere is another question. I don't think so, but it is too early to tell.

What annoys me is that back in April, the us forces were believed to be one day from taking Fallujah however they struck a deal with the local chiefs who set up the "Fallujah Brigade" whose job it would be to patroll the city and keep order. Predictably enough the brigade soon dispersed and individuals joined the various insurgency groups taking with them the equipment given to them. For all the problems with the current operation, at least the US hasn't made the same mistake this time.

shltter

pork99 wrote:

It will be a disaster for Iraq if people like this prevail.
.

Well it doesn't come as a surprise that there will always be collaboraters with people who invade any country as there France Holland and Ireland
nor is it a surprise when these people are killed for the crime of collaborating with a foreign occupying army

if you put the shoe on the other foot if Iraq had invaded the USA for whatever reason however justifiable to the Iraqis would americans who collaborated with the Iraqis not be targetted by their fellow americans

and if a foreign contractor was found there working for the occupying iraqis i guess he would be lucky to keep his head

the simple fact is that these people are freedom fighters fighting to liberate their country from the USA and UK much like the Afghan mujahedeen that the US supported in the 80's against the Soviets

shltter

SkepticOne wrote:

What annoys me is that back in April, the us forces were believed to be one day from taking Fallujah however they struck a deal with the local chiefs who set up the "Fallujah Brigade" whose job it would be to patroll the city and keep order. Predictably enough the brigade soon dispersed and individuals joined the various insurgency groups taking with them the equipment given to them. For all the problems with the current operation, at least the US hasn't made the same mistake this time.

well what annoys me is that you think it s ok to have the americans blowing the **** out of an Iraqi city
now they have killed over a thousand people all of whom were of course were guilty of something
like being iraqi

I think we should support the Iraqi resistance

SkepticOne

shltter wrote:

well what annoys me is that you think it s ok to have the americans blowing the **** out of an Iraqi city
now they have killed over a thousand people all of whom were of course were guilty of something like being iraqi

Overall, I think it would have been better if the initial invasion had never happened, but now that it has, actions that would in normal circumstances be considered unacceptable may become necessary.

I think we should support the Iraqi resistance

I don't have much faith in these fellas either tbh. I'm not sure if I was an Iraqi I'd want these guys running the country.