Falluja tactics - Bush people, justify this.

bonkey · 14-11-2004 2:55pm

SkepticOne wrote:

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.

Whatever about necessary, they definitely can become "the least worst option".

Anyone who thinks the US pulling out of Iraq is now the solution is - in my opinion - as wrong as anyone who thought that the plan we've seen carried out to date was the solution. I'm also pretty sure that most people who want the US to pull out of Iraq will be the first to blame US for the ensuing mess post pull-out, on the grounds that it was the invasion that broke it all.

I see it like this...either you want it fixed, or you don't. If you don't want it fixed, don't complain that it was left broken if and when the US does pull out. If, on the other hand, you do want it fixed, then regardless of what has happened hithertofore, the question is "where now" and nothing else.

I'm not convinced Fallujah is the right "where" to be going now. Other than the questionable act of the blown-up hospital, it would appear to be a rather well-run and successful campaign. However, I'm deeply concerned at the cost of victory, and the significance of the victory purchased. THere were fewer insurgents than expected...which could mean that the numbers nationwide are overestimated, or that Fallujah's significance was overestimated. Time will tell. As to the cost...well...if the city is effectively reduced to rubble (I don't know that it is, I'm theorising here) then its hard to see how the US can consider it a victory, especially in terms of ever winning the peace. Hopefully its not that bad, and that the town can get back to some semblance of normalcy within the short-to-medium term.

jc

mike65 · 14-11-2004 3:06pm

I think we should support the Iraqi resistance

Hmmmmm is'nt that a bit like saying "we" should have supported the IRA until they had control of Northern Ireland.

As for the Falluja assult as it clearly was a terrorist stronghold it made sense to clear it, the US military could not sit back and let it become a rival centre of power. Mosel will proberly next to get it as they chase the insurgents until they have nowhere to go. I imagine the Army would sooner be taking the inititive than sit round waiting for the next sucide bomber.

While ppl can deplore the policy, in the real world its proberly the only one that'll pay long-term dividends. Withdrawing is NOT an option.

Mike.

SkepticOne · 14-11-2004 3:28pm

bonkey wrote:

As to the cost...well...if the city is effectively reduced to rubble (I don't know that it is, I'm theorising here) then its hard to see how the US can consider it a victory, especially in terms of ever winning the peace. Hopefully its not that bad, and that the town can get back to some semblance of normalcy within the short-to-medium term.

From the pictures coming out of the place it doesn't seem like the city has been reduced quite to Grosny style rubble. If this were the intention, it would be far more effective simply to send in the B52s which could achieve this in short-order. However, there are a lot of damaged buildings. The marines haven't been shy about the demolition of buildings that they are being shot at from, but they are some way short of Russian style levelling. The full extent of the damage won't become clear for a while, however.

dathi1 · 14-11-2004 4:14pm

As for the Falluja assult as it clearly was a terrorist stronghold it made sense to clear it,

says who?

shltter · 14-11-2004 4:14pm

mike65 wrote:

Hmmmmm is'nt that a bit like saying "we" should have supported the IRA until they had control of Northern Ireland.

As for the Falluja assult as it clearly was a terrorist stronghold it made sense to clear it, the US military could not sit back and let it become a rival centre of power. Mosel will proberly next to get it as they chase the insurgents until they have nowhere to go. I imagine the Army would sooner be taking the inititive than sit round waiting for the next sucide bomber.

While ppl can deplore the policy, in the real world its proberly the only one that'll pay long-term dividends. Withdrawing is NOT an option.

Mike.

who is a terrorist that is fox news bullshlt anyone who disagrees with the American occupation
the nazis called the french resistance terrorists

the US should not be there
as for chasing the insurgents till they have no where to go you clearly dont understand urban guerilla warfare
the resistance in Iraq are not stupid they know they can not win in a conventional war
so they disperse and regroup attack and run and what the americans are doing only increases the support for the resistance

a solution will not be found at the barrell of a gun

a possible solution would be to send a UN or Arab league envoy someone who is not involved in the occupation and mass murder
we now know who the people are that would have to be dealt with the leaders of the resistance religous leaders leaders of the kurds shia and sunnis
to replace the occupiers with a peacekeeping force who would be acceptable
to the Iraqi's to facilitate elections a new constitution and a referendum on the same
obviously there is no point in replacing the US with peacekeepers if this is not done in consultation with the iraqi's first
then rebuilding could take place obviously all the contracts that the US have given out would be null and void
then a representative army and police force acceptable to the people of iraq could be formed
the other choice is elections organised by the US (we have seen what a great job they make of their own)
That could never be claimed to be free and fair
or a continuation of the american backed unelected regime with a prime minister who is a self confessed former CIA agent

shltter · 14-11-2004 4:16pm

SkepticOne wrote:

I'm not sure if I was an Iraqi I'd want these guys running the country.

would you want the americans

SkepticOne · 14-11-2004 4:44pm

shltter wrote:

the US should not be there as for chasing the insurgents till they have no where to go you clearly dont understand urban guerilla warfare the resistance in Iraq are not stupid they know they can not win in a conventional war so they disperse and regroup attack and run and what the americans are doing only increases the support for the resistance a solution will not be found at the barrell of a gun

Yet as we have seen, these people can't be reasoned with. The UN force you think will solve all the problems in Iraq will still need to use the gun against people who blow up UN buildings and their staff as has happened. The UN will be also unpopular among the the ordinary people of Iraq since no one likes a heavy military presence, however necessary, on the streets. This, of course, is all accademic because there is next to no international will to sort out the problems in Iraq and I'm not sure it would be a good thing if there was given the UN's record to date in such situations.

Basically, the US are there and they are now responsible whether they like it or not for stabilising the situation and sorting things out. This, unfortunately, means going after the former Baathist "freedom fighters". It is very unpleasant and disturbing, but few here seem interested in realistic alternatives.

shltter · 14-11-2004 5:57pm

SkepticOne wrote:

Yet as we have seen, these people can't be reasoned with. The UN force you think will solve all the problems in Iraq will still need to use the gun against people who blow up UN buildings and their staff as has happened. The UN will be also unpopular among the the ordinary people of Iraq since no one likes a heavy military presence, however necessary, on the streets. This, of course, is all accademic because there is next to no international will to sort out the problems in Iraq and I'm not sure it would be a good thing if there was given the UN's record to date in such situations.

Basically, the US are there and they are now responsible whether they like it or not for stabilising the situation and sorting things out. This, unfortunately, means going after the former Baathist "freedom fighters". It is very unpleasant and disturbing, but few here seem interested in realistic alternatives.

first who says they can not be reasoned with who has tried

I have to admit there the UN has a major credibility problem when it comes to iraq

however if the people are given the option of ridding themselves of the americans by having a facilitating force UN Arab League whoever
obviously preferably made up of muslims rather than western christians

however your point that the un would be unpopular because of the heavy military presence is nonesense they would be unpopular because of the UN sanctions
that is why i suggested perhaps the Arab League
i agree that there is not much chance of this in the short term especially with bush in for another 4 years

I also dont accept that the resistance to the invasion is only from bathists
from what i have read it is widespread

SkepticOne · 14-11-2004 6:22pm

shltter wrote:

however your point that the un would be unpopular because of the heavy military presence is nonesense they would be unpopular because of the UN sanctions

Well, look at the UN operation in the Ivory Coast. No sanctions there. But you are correct that the UN would also be unpopular because of the sanctions and the corrupt dealings with Saddam. Besides, there's no way the UN will get involved at this stage since the securit council voted unanimously to recognise the US appointed Iraqi government. As far as the UN is concerned Iraq is a sovereign nation. It is up to the legitimate (according to the UN) government to call for UN help.

that is why i suggested perhaps the Arab League i agree that there is not much chance of this in the short term especially with bush in for another 4 years

Well if the US pulled out tomorrow, it would be up to some coalition of neighbouring forces to sort out the resulting civil war. There would still be fighting and it would likely be just as bad if not worse for ordinary Iraqis. The people being fought in Fallujah are not just trying to get the Yanks out but are trying to reclaim their former position of rule.

I also dont accept that the resistance to the invasion is only from bathists from what i have read it is widespread

There has been resistance from what seems to be a minority of Shias in Najaf, Basra and other places, but in the case of Basra, these seem to have been contained with far less force than Fallujah. In the case of Najaf, a deal seems to have been worked out with the local cleric leader. A deal was attempted in Fallujah with disasterous results and the current action is an attempt fix that mistake.

I'm not trying to condone the foreign presense in Iraq and ultimately I agree this must end, but telling the US to get out is unrealistic imo.

Moriarty · 14-11-2004 8:05pm

SkepticOne wrote:

but telling the US to get out is unrealistic imo.

It's only unrealistic if you give a rats ass about the Iraqi populace. If you're only looking for the most expediant route to the US getting a bloody nose (like some that have posted in this thread), it may sound quite realistic indeed.

shltter · 14-11-2004 9:29pm

Moriarty wrote:

It's only unrealistic if you give a rats ass about the Iraqi populace. If you're only looking for the most expediant route to the US getting a bloody nose (like some that have posted in this thread), it may sound quite realistic indeed.

so do you believe that the best interest of the Iraqi populace is the continuation of the american occupation

over 100,000 iraqi civilians have been murdered already

if the americans announced their intention to withdraw to hand over to an international peacekeeping force who would have no selfish interest in the outcome of Iraqi elections
who would only stay as long as they were welcome and who would only go in with the agreement of the different groups in iraq
that in my opinion would would offer the best option for the ordinary iraqi populace
If the americans stay then people will continue to fight them
as for the americans if leaving gives them a bloody nose good enough for them
if they stay they will have more than a bloody nose and will end up leaving with thier tale between their legs even if it takes 20 or more years

pork99 · 16-11-2004 1:28am

Falluja tactics - Iraqi "resistance" supporter people, justify this;

http://www.gulf-daily-news.com/Story.asp?Article=96585&Sn=WORL&IssueID=27240

http://breakingnews.iol.ie/news/story.asp?j=124203050&p=yz4zx3756

so do you believe that the best interest of the Iraqi populace is the continuation of the american occupation

The whole US strategy in Iraq is based on handing control to an Iraqi government and getting out. If they cannot hand over to a stable elected Iraqi government they will have failed.

The "resistance" are fighting to prevent this as they do not like the idea of no longer having a monopoly on power, they fear that a freely elected government will give too much influence to the Shi'ites and Kurds.

Look at what is happening. All the violence provoked by the Fallujah assault is happening in Sunni (therefore former Ba'athist) dominated parts of Iraq. The Shi'ite areas are quiet - they're the majority and therefore are looking forward to elections, won't do anything to disrupt them. The Kurdish areas have been peaceful since the invasion.

Some Iraqi opinions from http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/talking_point/3991813.stm (contrary views are also expressed)

From BBCArabic.com:I am originally from Falluja. I support the government in its use of force to rid us from the terrorist gangs that have been wrecking havoc in my city and causing pain to my people. I say to Arabs outside Iraq: Please save us your comments because you don't know the crimes that have been committed by these gangs under the guise of religion and resistance.
Ahlam Jamil, Iraq

From BBCArabic.com: I am surprised at those who describe terror as resistance. Where was this resistance during Saddam's reign? Wasn't there any injustice then? Did he not kill thousands in cold blood?
Tariq, Baghdad

From BBCArabic.com: Some are shedding tears for Falluja and for the terrorists and murderers, but no-one seems to have spared a thought for the bereaved families who have lost loved ones because of the car bombs etc, manufactured by those criminals who call themselves part of the resistance. Allawi's decision is a sound one and should have been taken and implemented long before now. Iraq does not need criminals to defend it.
Wisam, Basra, Iraq

bonkey · 16-11-2004 10:42am

pork99 wrote:

The whole US strategy in Iraq is based on handing control to an Iraqi government and getting out. If they cannot hand over to a stable elected Iraqi government they will have failed.

The subtle diffeernce in the descriptions of the government between both of those sentences is actually what worries me most.

I'm worried that the US wants to do the former, which will lead to the latter (i.e. that as soon as they have the excuse of an elected government, no matter how unworkable, unstable, or insecure it might be) we'll start hearing "you have to take care of yourselves sooner or later" rhetoric followed by a pullout....which will then meet with your requirements for failure (which I generally agree with).

jc

pork99 · 16-11-2004 11:24am

bonkey wrote:

I'm worried that the US wants to do the former, which will lead to the latter (i.e. that as soon as they have the excuse of an elected government, no matter how unworkable, unstable, or insecure it might be) we'll start hearing "you have to take care of yourselves sooner or later" rhetoric followed by a pullout....which will then meet with your requirements for failure (which I generally agree with).

jc

Good analysis here by fromer General Wesley Clarke

http://www.michaelmoore.com/words/index.php?id=315

You cannot win in Iraq simply by killing the opponent. Much as we honor our troops and pray for their well-being, if diplomacy fails, their sacrifices and even their successes in Fallujah won't be enough.

sovtek · 16-11-2004 11:29am

mike65 wrote:

While ppl can deplore the policy, in the real world its proberly the only one that'll pay long-term dividends.

This pretty much sums up what I think about that.

Withdrawing is NOT an option.

Nixon thought that too. It ended badly.

sovtek · 16-11-2004 11:45am

bonkey wrote:

Anyone who thinks the US pulling out of Iraq is now the solution is - in my opinion - as wrong as anyone who thought that the plan we've seen carried out to date was the solution. I'm also pretty sure that most people who want the US to pull out of Iraq will be the first to blame US for the ensuing mess post pull-out, on the grounds that it was the invasion that broke it all.

Of course America will be blamed and rightly so. Should they heeded their allies concerns then this mess wouldn't have happened. So now they are responsible for what happens no matter what their course. That's the consequences of invasion.
America pulling out is merely the first step and on condition that they don't use another client regime to punish Iraq for the next 15 years like they did with Vietnam. There would have to be a peacekeeping force from the UN brought in and a true effort to rebuild the country.
It's clear the American government, neither Demo or Repub has the Iraqi people's interest at heart...so they are completely out of the game. Besides they've completely alienated the Iraqis.
Even if the UN should come in it isn't going to be easy....but that's why every one said "boo" in the first place. Unfortunetly the world is left with a major problem some incompetent/sadistic rich kid left us with.
I think the UN isn't going to have near the resistance the Americans' have especially if they truly show that the interests of Iraqis are paramount....something that hasn't been done yet.
This all forgets that the Iraqi's themselves have shown that they can run the country if given the chance.

I see it like this...either you want it fixed, or you don't. If you don't want it fixed, don't complain that it was left broken if and when the US does pull out. If, on the other hand, you do want it fixed, then regardless of what has happened hithertofore, the question is "where now" and nothing else.

And I don't think I'm alone in thinking the "where now" approach doesn't include the American military, especially with the various war crimes under their belt....and no reason to think that is going to change.

THere were fewer insurgents than expected...which could mean that the numbers nationwide are overestimated, or that Fallujah's significance was overestimated.

And the idealogy of "militant = every male in Falluja" isn't going to lessen the resistance in numbers. It may very well become Iraqi's equivalent of "Remember the Alamo".

Hobbes · 16-11-2004 11:45am

pork99 wrote:

The whole US strategy in Iraq is based on handing control to an Iraqi government and getting out. If they cannot hand over to a stable elected Iraqi government they will have failed.

I don't believe it is. First up the laws they have implemented means it is going to be unstable for a very long time. Second the US has already created long term bases in Iraq, similar to what you see in S.Korea, Saudi, Germany.

The "resistance" are fighting to prevent this as they do not like the idea of no longer having a monopoly on power, they fear that a freely elected government will give too much influence to the Shi'ites and Kurds.

The government is far from freely elected. A moderate who was running for the election was told he couldn't. Also the laws implemented cannot be changed without a radical changing of the Iraq government.

Look at what is happening. All the violence provoked by the Fallujah assault is happening in Sunni (therefore former Ba'athist) dominated parts of Iraq.

It is happening EVERYWHERE. I mean you have daily suicide bombings in Baghdad ffs.

The Kurdish areas have been peaceful since the invasion.

No they haven't, in fact more Kurds are being targetted by insurgents. Which is kind of funny as the Kurds are getting screwed by the new laws put into place as well.

sovtek · 16-11-2004 12:05pm

pork99 wrote:

Look at what is happening. All the violence provoked by the Fallujah assault is happening in Sunni (therefore former Ba'athist) dominated parts of Iraq. The Shi'ite areas are quiet - they're the majority and therefore are looking forward to elections, won't do anything to disrupt them.

This is all sounds good and it sounds oddly like the crap coming out of the Pentagon. Of course if you listen to reports from commanders on the ground, reporters on the ground then it sounds like the Pentagon is full of ****. But we wouldn't have any reason to think the Pentagon would lie about anything now would we?
To correct you Falluja isn't a stronghold of Saddam supporters. They actually defied Saddam and wouldn't allow him to pray in the mosques there. An inconvenient fact.

The Kurdish areas have been peaceful since the invasion.

And ironically that's where Zarqarwi was hanging out before the invasion. Of course the Kurds have been bought off for colluding with the Americans. The Kurds were basically autonomous before the invasion and aren't representative of the majority of Iraqis (hence the their minority status).

Some Iraqi opinions from http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/talking_point/3991813.stm (contrary views are also expressed)

Wow. You mean two ex-pat Iraqi's don't agree with the majority of their countrymen? *shock* *horror* Who knows...they might not actually have to intimidate these two people to vote for Allawi in Jan. Democracy is a fine thing.

sovtek · 16-11-2004 12:07pm

Hobbes wrote:

It is happening EVERYWHERE. I mean you have daily suicide bombings in Baghdad ffs.

All perpetrated by the omnipresent Zarqarwi...of course.

bonkey · 16-11-2004 12:43pm

sovtek wrote:

And I don't think I'm alone in thinking the "where now" approach doesn't include the American military

Well, I'm interested in what you think it does entail then.

Right now, if you pull the US army out of Iraq, then "where now" is basically "civil war until a single, strong faction emerges and dominates the others" as far as I can see.

If you have some other notion as to how Iraq of today without the US military could have a bright future, I'd love to hear it.

(Note : if it involves the UN...the reality is that UN peacekeeping forces will require significant US military presence to make up the numbers, so either you're not excluding the US military at all, or what you meant was more like "doesn't include autonomous, unilateral American control")

(Also Note : If anyone wants to take this as support of the current plan of action by the US government, military, or anything else, I'd suggest they first search for some of my previous posts where I argue the stupidity of such binary logic to save me having to type the same type of stuff again.)

jc

Redleslie2 · 16-11-2004 1:06pm

pork99 wrote:

Falluja tactics - Iraqi "resistance" supporter people, justify this;

http://www.gulf-daily-news.com/Story.asp?Article=96585&Sn=WORL&IssueID=27240

http://breakingnews.iol.ie/news/story.asp?j=124203050&p=yz4zx3756

If it's any consolation, there's a fair chance that whoever's responsible for that has been blown to bits by the americans. Or maybe it was that wounded guy who got shot in the mosque on telly. He'll do. According to an AP photographer (report), a family of 5 was killed by a helicopter while trying to cross the river to escape the city. Maybe they did it. Bit suspicious that, running away from a crime scene. How many more deaths for revenge/justice are appropriate?

sovtek · 16-11-2004 1:25pm

bonkey wrote:

Well, I'm interested in what you think it does entail then.

Right now, if you pull the US army out of Iraq, then "where now" is basically "civil war until a single, strong faction emerges and dominates the others" as far as I can see.

Of course that is possible. But that "civil war" scenario was trumped up even before the invasion and so far the only Iraqis that are killing each other are the ones that are working for the occupiers and the ones resisting occupation.
Otherwise the Iraqi people seem to be one in that they want the US out.

If you have some other notion as to how Iraq of today without the US military could have a bright future, I'd love to hear it.

I've provided links before of the Iraqi's organizing their own governmental structure, in the amount of time between Saddam's regime and CPA taking over.

(Note : if it involves the UN...the reality is that UN peacekeeping forces will require significant US military presence to make up the numbers, so either you're not excluding the US military at all, or what you meant was more like "doesn't include autonomous, unilateral American control")

Again it's possible that civil war will break out but it's not a given. I'm not an expert on troop strength but I don't see why a larger troop number would be needed unless their was civil war. Seems most people just want the water turned back on and be able to walk around without suicide bombings. The later being targeted at Iraqi police.
To answer your question I wouldn't totally rule out US troops, but definetly command. Although soldiers with big white teeth might set off fighting in its own right.
I would back that earlier Arab League suggestion as well.

(Also Note : If anyone wants to take this as support of the current plan of action by the US government, military, or anything else, I'd suggest they first search for some of my previous posts where I argue the stupidity of such binary logic to save me having to type the same type of stuff again.)

I didn't take it that way. I do think, however, that the US occupying and in control is the root of the problem and their removal the begining of a solution.
Not that it won't be messy no matter what.

Jimboo_Jones · 16-11-2004 1:47pm

It's a mess, a big bloodly mess and the big losers, as always, will be the civilians caught up in this.

When I see the state of the city, I fear for what the general people will think about the American and Iraq forces. I wouldn't be suprised if this did lead to even greater problems in the near and log future.

America may be looking into the long term future ala South Korea, Germany (I dont think they had any long term plan for Saudi other than have their bases there for as long as possible) but the sistuation is very very different. When the average person returns to Falluja and look at the wreak it has become and start to bury and morn people who have died I think they will point the finger at America in a way that the above would not have.

That said, I really do know what they could have done different to return civilian rule to Falluja other than a full attack. Again its a mess, a big bloodly mess

bonkey · 16-11-2004 2:10pm

sovtek wrote:

and so far the only Iraqis that are killing each other are the ones that are working for the occupiers and the ones resisting occupation.

And should the occupation end? What will they all do? Put down their guns and say "right, lets be friends, and sure you guys can retain the control of the country" (in the case of the resistance), or "right, lets be friends, and sure every one of you guys' factions can take the control that we've had" (in the case of the collaborators) ???

The occupation has already caused this divide, and while its convenient for us to classify it as occupation vs resistance, the reality is that the resistance is not a unified organisation which can take control in place of the existing structures.

Lets not also forget the spectacular "success" of the US in keeping out non-Iraqi "resistance". Are these people gonna just up and leave, or are some/many of them going to stick around and see what else they can do to advance their own causes in the ensuing power vacuum?

I've provided links before of the Iraqi's organizing their own governmental structure, in the amount of time between Saddam's regime and CPA taking over.

You have indeed. But it doesn't deal with the situation of today - its an example of what may have been possible had things been done differently at the time. What reason do we have to believe that the Iraqi's could/would do this again? I would also point out that there was more than one group setting about creating governmental structures at the time you refer to. What would have happened when those groups butted head-to-head? Would each recognise the "legitimacy" of each other, and just reach an amicable accord of who got to take what aspects of government?

Take a very simple question...if the US leave, what will the Kurds do? Will they jsut trust the rest of Iraq to leave them with their effective autonomy, or will they declare independance now that there's no-one stopping them?

Should they do this, what will the Turks' reaction be, given that their lack of opposition to the war was conditional on the Iraqi Kurds not being given independance? What will the rest of the Iraqi's reaction be?

I'm not saying the US can't pull out....I'm just saying that they cannot pull out now. There are far too many unknowns, and far too many things that can go wrong. And lets face it....even if you believe that a government could spontaneously form subsequent to a pull-out, and that a pull-out should be done because of this...if the pullout happened, and the government didn't form, thats gonna be the US' fault too, even from the perspective of those who said its what they should have done.

jc

mycroft · 16-11-2004 2:21pm

http://www.sky.com/skynews/article/0,,30000-13249411,00.html

Which beggers the question if this is what we see, what is going on when the press aren't around.

shltter · 16-11-2004 2:27pm

pork99 wrote:

Falluja tactics - Iraqi "resistance" supporter people, justify this;

http://www.gulf-daily-news.com/Story.asp?Article=96585&Sn=WORL&IssueID=27240

http://breakingnews.iol.ie/news/story.asp?j=124203050&p=yz4zx3756

The whole US strategy in Iraq is based on handing control to an Iraqi government and getting out. If they cannot hand over to a stable elected Iraqi government they will have failed.

The "resistance" are fighting to prevent this as they do not like the idea of no longer having a monopoly on power, they fear that a freely elected government will give too much influence to the Shi'ites and Kurds.

Look at what is happening. All the violence provoked by the Fallujah assault is happening in Sunni (therefore former Ba'athist) dominated parts of Iraq. The Shi'ite areas are quiet - they're the majority and therefore are looking forward to elections, won't do anything to disrupt them. The Kurdish areas have been peaceful since the invasion.

Some Iraqi opinions from http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/talking_point/3991813.stm (contrary views are also expressed)

i wouldn't attempt to justify the murder of an innocent woman

the other hostages who went to profiteer are different the method of killing is barbaric
but it is a deliberate act to discourage other profiteers probably sucessful

i could also ask you to justify the murder of the wounded man in a mosque

also as for free elections the puppet american government has banned iraqi media from reporting on fallujah except in a positive light critisism of the puppet regime is banned
journalist will be jailed for reporting the truth and newspapers closed
the shia areas are quieter at the moment because the americans have bought a temporary peace lets see how long it holds

the resistance are doing exactly what people in any country that has been invaded would do try to force out the invader

shltter · 16-11-2004 2:39pm

bonkey wrote:

The occupation has already caused this divide, and while its convenient for us to classify it as occupation vs resistance, the reality is that the resistance is not a unified organisation which can take control in place of the existing structures.

Lets not also forget the spectacular "success" of the US in keeping out non-Iraqi "resistance". Are these people gonna just up and leave, or are some/many of them going to stick around and see what else they can do to advance their own causes in the ensuing power vacuum?

jc

I'am afraid what you seem to be arguing is for the staus quo
the american presence is the problem
to my mind there is only 2 possible solutions
1 america leaves and the region and iraqis try to deal with the aftermath
2 america stays and kills everyone who is against them
that seems to be the path we are on at the moment

also i heard that guy tom clonan on morning ireland this mornng he was saying that death / casualty rates are running higher for US troops in iraq compared to Vietnam under 9% for Vietnam nearly 12% for Iraq

if that keeps up surely it is only a matter of time before the US has to pull out or introduce a draft
i read somewhere recently that volunteers were drying up in the northern states and it is the bible belt that is keeping them going at the moment

sovtek · 16-11-2004 2:51pm

bonkey wrote:

And should the occupation end? What will they all do? Put down their guns and say "right, lets be friends, and sure you guys can retain the control of the country" (in the case of the resistance), or "right, lets be friends, and sure every one of you guys' factions can take the control that we've had" (in the case of the collaborators) ???

The majority of collaborators seem to be guys that just want jobs...which probably why they do things like quit the "Iraqi Army" when they are told to go kill their fellow countrymen.
I'm not saying that they should just turn over the country to guys that are fighting the Americans. That can be negotiated and those factions brought into the political arena.

The occupation has already caused this divide, and while its convenient for us to classify it as occupation vs resistance, the reality is that the resistance is not a unified organisation which can take control in place of the existing structures.

Again I'm not suggesting that the resistance be the guys necessarily taking control.

Lets not also forget the spectacular "success" of the US in keeping out non-Iraqi "resistance". Are these people gonna just up and leave, or are some/many of them going to stick around and see what else they can do to advance their own causes in the ensuing power vacuum?

Alot of the "foreign fighters" are cited by the Pentagon and refuted by people on the ground. I'm not saying their aren't foreign fighters (Iraq did have immigrants BTW) but they don't seem to be there in any great number.
And where is the power vacuum going to be if the UN is there to support the Iraqi's in a government of their own creation.

You have indeed. But it doesn't deal with the situation of today - its an example of what may have been possible had things been done differently at the time.

Maybe but I see it as the best solution to try.

What reason do we have to believe that the Iraqi's could/would do this again?

And who's to say they won't? It's happened before,why not again.

I would also point out that there was more than one group setting about creating governmental structures at the time you refer to. What would have happened when those groups butted head-to-head?

If, say, the UN was there then they could negotiate between the different factions. Of course this might not be altogether peaceful....but I think it should at least be tried.

Would each recognise the "legitimacy" of each other, and just reach an amicable accord of who got to take what aspects of government? [/QOUTE]

Who knows....but they obviously don't recognize the legitimacy of the interim government and it doesn't seem like anyone's to keen on who might run for election in Jan.

Take a very simple question...if the US leave, what will the Kurds do? Will they jsut trust the rest of Iraq to leave them with their effective autonomy,

I don't know and I doubt anyone could necessarily predict it. But a UN backed by a peacekeeping force could possibly be a go between in all these different scenarios.

or will they declare independance now that there's no-one stopping them?

And who's to say that the Iraqi's will give a damn either way.

Should they do this, what will the Turks' reaction be, given that their lack of opposition to the war was conditional on the Iraqi Kurds not being given independance?

Again I don't know, but last I checked Turkey have no legitimate claims to Iraqi governmental structures.

What will the rest of the Iraqi's reaction be?

Again I don't know...who's to say they'll care. They've been a somewhat autonomous entity for a while now anyway.

I'm not saying the US can't pull out....I'm just saying that they cannot pull out now. There are far too many unknowns, and far too many things that can go wrong.

I disagree, because it is known that the Iraqi's do not support the occupation and the Americans are digging a whole with every passing month. They've been there almost two years and have botched it at every step.
By all indications the Iraqis are ready to try something else.

And lets face it....even if you believe that a government could spontaneously form subsequent to a pull-out

I'm not saying that it's going to spontaneously generate a government. It will probably need the UN to aid in it's creation.
And it will probably not all go smoothly, but I think it's a better place to start rather than an occupying power that never had the well being of the Iraqi's in mind in the first place. An occupying power that is central to the chaos in Iraq.

and that a pull-out should be done because of this...if the pullout happened, and the government didn't form, thats gonna be the US' fault too, even from the perspective of those who said its what they should have done.

Yup they will and rightly so. It was a predictable outcome that was totally ignored and as a consequence they are totally responsible for it.

bonkey · 16-11-2004 3:39pm

shltter wrote:

I'am afraid what you seem to be arguing is for the staus quo
the american presence is the problem

bonkey, shortly before shltter made this comment wrote:

If anyone wants to take this as support of the current plan of action by the US government, military, or anything else, I'd suggest they first search for some of my previous posts where I argue the stupidity of such binary logic to save me having to type the same type of stuff again.

Look at that....I'm now able to answer the criticisms of my argument before they're even posted

jc

bonkey · 16-11-2004 3:58pm

sovtek wrote:

And who's to say they won't? It's happened before,why not again.

"Might happen again" is not the best platform for building a plan for a nation's future, or would you not agree?

If, say, the UN was there then they could negotiate between the different factions. Of course this might not be altogether peaceful....but I think it should at least be tried.

Oh, I agree the UN should be there....I just don't believe they should be there without the US. As I suggested earlier, there is a significant difference in "US pulling out" and "US handing over control to another group, and then making their resources available to this new group".

Again I don't know, but last I checked Turkey have no legitimate claims to Iraqi governmental structures.

No, they don't. But if Iraqi Kurdistan declares independance, it stands a high probability of being a catalyst for one of the following :

1) Invasion by Turkey
2) Declaration of independance from Turkey of Turkish Kurdistan, leading to Turkish civil unrest / civil war / suppression of insurgency
3) Turkish suppression of Turkish Kurds, to prevent 2 happening.

None of these are particularly good things to have happen if the aim is to stop the violence, especially if another option is available.

I would go so far as to say that being flippant about all possible impacts of well-intentioned actions is exactly what got us where we are today. Its not something we want to adopt as a central philosophy to finding a new solution.

Again I don't know...who's to say they'll care. They've been a somewhat autonomous entity for a while now anyway.

Autonomous, except for the monies from the oilfields which are technically inside their lands, but who's funds do not remain in their hands.

The Kurds don't want independance without the fields that are within what traditionally are considered Kurdistan's borders. The Iraqi's don't care if teh Kurdistani's declare independance much as long as they leave the oilfields in Iraq's possession. The Turks care either way.

By all indications the Iraqis are ready to try something else.

Yup. The problem is that I haven't seen a single indication that the Iraqis are all ready to try the same something else.....and they've shown themselves to be very willing to fight against the something's they don't agree with.

Yup they will and rightly so.

Well then what onus is there on them to pay any attention whatsoever to public opinion or alternate points of view? If they're wrong no matter what they do, then they should do it the way they see as being right...

I mean....why should they possibly consider doing what someone else who says they're wrong tells them they should do, when that someone else will only tell them that they're still wrong even after they do what was suggested!

jc

Falluja tactics - Bush people, justify this.

Comments