Falluja tactics - Bush people, justify this.

claidheamh

This doesn't help matters either. This is truly an act of mindless slaughter; More than likely, not the first account either:

US Soldiers Shoot Iraqi Wounded

I'm sure that tactic will subdue all kinds of Iraqi hostility. It fits well with the US methodologies for creating, "a free democratic Iraq."

Moriarty

As usual, it's not as black and white as it seems.

I'm not excusing what he did (if he did what it looks like), but it would help if the iraqi guy's mates weren't blowing themselves up with explosive belts or grenades when they were obviously wounded and marines went over to actually help them. The end result is a few more dead marines and a lot more dead (previously-)wounded iraqis because of nervous marines.

It's shítty, but there you go.

xm15e3

Moriarty wrote:

As usual, it's not as black and white as it seems.

I'm not excusing what he did (if he did what it looks like), but it would help if the iraqi guy's mates weren't blowing themselves up with explosive belts or grenades when they were obviously wounded and marines went over to actually help them. The end result is a few more dead marines and a lot more dead (previously-)wounded iraqis because of nervous marines.

It's shítty, but there you go.

The Marine in question had been shot in the face by one playing dead/wounded the day before this happened. He had also lost friends the day before due to exploding "wounded", Marines were also killed this day (Saturday) due to the same.

A key point in this is that the Marines did not have the wounded in custody. They were retaking a position they had pulled back from earlier. In short, wounded were still hostile. Ask any Russian solder who served in Groznyy.

The US media is pushing the "Marine Shoots Wounded Prisoner" angle, which is false.

Interestingly, what the Marine did is almost exactly what John Kerry did to earn is Silver Star with "Combat V".

Here's the long cut of the video.

http://www.homelandsecurityus.com/Video%202.rm

chill

Moriarty wrote:

As usual, it's not as black and white as it seems.

I'm not excusing what he did (if he did what it looks like), but it would help if the iraqi guy's mates weren't blowing themselves up with explosive belts or grenades when they were obviously wounded and marines went over to actually help them. The end result is a few more dead marines and a lot more dead (previously-)wounded iraqis because of nervous marines.

It's shítty, but there you go.

I agree 100%....

I do NOT approve of what he did and he needs to be taken out of combat until he gets himself sorted. But I would not support him being prosecuted unlkess there are other circumstances we are not aware of.
But this is war and war with an enemy who do not exhibit any humanity in their behaviour whatsever. They booby trap dead bodies, they booby trap wounded because they know western soldiers are human beings as well as soldiers. This guy and his comrades had been fighting house to house in the most barbaric and deadly conditions imaginable.

Of course it is an early Christmas present for those gagging to find something to attack the army about. Pity.

A Dub in Glasgo

chill wrote:

Of course it is an early Christmas present for those gagging to find something to attack the army about. Pity.

the army? Are you American cos they sure aren't our army.

The fella in question is a Marine therefore he is the responsibility of the Navy.

Moriarty

It's just a technicality, but no, he's the responsability of the marines. They're a seperate and distinct branch like the air force, army and navy.

bonkey

Enough of the pedantry, thanks lads.

For once...shock horror...my initial reaction to this is pretty much entirely with Chill's.

The soldier in question needs to be taken off active duty until such times as all questions are answered, and - as Chill says - he gets himself sorted out, as should probably be found necessary.

War is a terrible place, and the slightest screw-up can cost someone dearly. Soldiers & civilians alike suffer from this, and while it is convenient to argue that one of them chooses to be there, the reality is that simple human imperfection makes events such as this tragically inevitable.

It should, however, be seen as a vivid reminder of why it is important to hold any military - and those governing them - to the strictest standards, as events such as this can only become more commonplace the lower the maintained standards.

jc

sovtek

bonkey wrote:

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

Am I understanding you correctly. You don't have any reason to believe that the Iraqis can sort out their own government (with UN help) but you do have faith that the Americans are going to turn this around even though they've shown nothing but contempt for the will of the Iraqi people nevermind all the war crimes they've committed against them as well as the now blatantly obvious motivations for invading in the first place?

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".

Like I said I'm not against the US turning over control and supplying a contingent to a peacekeeping force.

I'll get back to your other points a little later.

bonkey

sovtek wrote:

Am I understanding you correctly. You don't have any reason to believe that the Iraqis can sort out their own government (with UN help) but you do have faith that the Americans are going to turn this around

No, you're not understanding me correctly.

My first objection is that a "vague" plan like "let the Iraqis do it themselves...it might work" is simply not an option for any organised operation. The US have a plan, whether we like it or not. They can adapt, modify, and change that plan as events change....but there is always a force in charge of steering events. Letting the Iraqis sort it out themselves basically chops off that head and says "figure out what the new head is yourself lads...and sure....if multiple heads appear, I'm sure you can all figure that one out peacefully". I don't support that option.

On the other hand, if you look at the notion of holding elections...other than the idea of banning "undesireable" parties (which I object to), you have a structured plan which is designed to let the Iraqi people figure out exactly the same stuff....but without rendering the nation headless while this happens.

I'm not sure it can work, beause the majorities will feel done if the minorities are given disproportionate representation to protect themselves, and the minorities will feel done if they aren't....but I don't see how that issue can be resolved differently no matter what path is being walked.

I also don't have faith that the Americans can turn this around. I believe that the only way this can be turned around is if the Americans are a prime force in that occurrence...which will require a change in their modus operandi. They're not doing it fully correctly right now....but that doesn't mean that the only other option is to remove them.

even though they've shown nothing but contempt for the will of the Iraqi people

Whereas the reisistance has shown nothing but contempt for the will of the Iraqi people who believe in the US, as well as contempt for the well-being of anyone who is in the way of their struggle...

nevermind all the war crimes they've committed against them as well

Exactly. Never mind them. You obviously don't mind leaving the nation at the mercy of the other armed forces (i.e. the resistance/insurrectionists/whatever-today's-term-is) who have comitted war-crimes, so I don't see why you should distinguish between the two.

Personally, I'd have more faith in the US' war-crimes being held up for account than those of the Iraqi factions who would - much like the Afghan warlords - be left in effective charge following a pullout....and that this, coupled with the (presumably) higher level of training, the existence of a formal chain-of-accountability, rules, laws, and the rest would give me hope that the US soldiers would be a better option, as long as they were responsibly directed from on high.

as the now blatantly obvious motivations for invading in the first place?

When you get half a dozen different people telling you how obvious the motives were, but each one producing different "obvious" motives...sooner or later you have to wonder exactly what is, and is not, obvious.

I would also point you back to where I said that if what you want to do is fix things, then the question is how to fix them....not who did what in the breaking of them.

jc

mycroft

I just (at around 2am) Antony Beevor's The fall of Berlin the harrowing tales of Russia troops rape of civilians, collective puinishment, and the disregard of civilians esp women and children puts alot of whats happening in perpective. US troop behaviour is appalling but this is war. In war terrible things happened. This article is by a former Para and details why he thinks the US soldier's shooting was justified and standard operating procedure.

But. We have been consistently been told that this is a new kind of war with a new kind of tactic needed. And I find myself thinking more and more of the fall of berlin and how so many tactics used by the US today are similar in theory (but not as vicious) to the behaviour of the forces of the USSR and 3rd Reich, but wrapped in a veneer of acceptability due to postive media spin, and the reprenhisible behaviour of a small troop of hardcore extremists, who gain support and legitmacy every time the US commit another abuse.

For example

The collective punishment of Falluja, the decision that all men between 15-55 must leave the city or be considered enemy combatants, is againist the geneva convention.

The taking of the Falluja's main hospitial declaring it a source of enemy propaganda (lists of the dead) is one of the most contemptable pieces of justification I've heard.

The banning of red crest personal from entering Falluja because the military "have the situation in hand", is like the two above againist the geneva convention.

It seems that the US are now using the justification that this is a new kind of war to merely circumnagivate the rules of engagement that made things awkward and yet have not bothered to initated any real alternative to protect the people they are liberating. They're not firing 100mm shells at civilians trying to flee the battle, but they are killing civilians either directly or indirectly in a wholy unjustifable way.

I'm aware this is nothing that's not been said before, and better, and on this thread, I was just struck by the similarities between the two events, and wonder has anything really changed in 60 years.

Moriarty

mycroft wrote:

The collective punishment of Falluja, the decision that all men between 15-55 must leave the city or be considered enemy combatants, is againist the geneva convention.

It's a fair point and I understand where you're coming from, but are the geneva conventions realistic in todays world? That's an honest question. I feel they're not, as they (naturally) haven't accounted for the massive changes in warfare since they were created. There's a real need for Geneva Convetions [Mark II].

mycroft wrote:

The taking of the Falluja's main hospitial declaring it a source of enemy propaganda (lists of the dead) is one of the most contemptable pieces of justification I've heard.

It was rather odd. I'd like to know for definite what they actually took it for, as that reason did seem rather hollow.

mycroft wrote:

The banning of red crest personal from entering Falluja because the military "have the situation in hand", is like the two above againist the geneva convention.

The problem (I presume) that the marines have with letting red crescent convoys go into the city is what happens if/when those convoys are attacked by insurgents and the marines have to go in and rescue them, or if the convoy strays into the middle of a firefight and gets shot up by the marines themselves.

mycroft wrote:

It seems that the US are now using the justification that this is a new kind of war to merely circumnagivate the rules of engagement that made things awkward and yet have not bothered to initated any real alternative to protect the people they are liberating. They're not firing 100mm shells at civilians trying to flee the battle, but they are killing civilians either directly or indirectly in a wholy unjustifable way.

Perhaps, then again perhaps not. How would you have 'solved' the falluja problem?

Gurgle

mycroft wrote:

It seems that the US are now using the justification that this is a new kind of war to merely circumnagivate the rules of engagement that made things awkward

Apparently the Geneva Convention etc. don't apply because they are fighting against terrorists not soldiers.

Yes, the Iraqi conscript army were all terrorists, and the Afhgan army, and the Taliban, the Bath party and Sadam Hussein's entire family.

The really convenient thing about terrorists is that they don't all wear uniforms and they don't all carry guns. You can define anyone you find dead as a terrorist.

Who can prove that one single person who has died in either Afghanistan or Iraq was ever involved in terrorism before the US crusades ?

mycroft

Moriarty wrote:

It's a fair point and I understand where you're coming from, but are the geneva conventions realistic in todays world? That's an honest question. I feel they're not, as they (naturally) haven't accounted for the massive changes in warfare since they were created. There's a real need for Geneva Convetions [Mark II].

Not to sound alarmest the new AG of the states, Alberto Gonzales , doesn't think the old one was up to scratch

Gonzales has been a big fan of monarchial (i.e., unconstitutional) powers for the White House, and has eagerly supported military torture, commenting once in a memo to the President that the Geneva Conventions are "quaint."

Moriarty wrote:

It was rather odd. I'd like to know for definite what they actually took it for, as that reason did seem rather hollow.

One unnamed senior American officer also admitted that the hospital had become a "centre of propaganda," reflecting the military's frustration at the high death tolls doctors frequently announce after American bombing raids.

Quote from here

Moriarty wrote:

The problem (I presume) that the marines have with letting red crescent convoys go into the city is what happens if/when those convoys are attacked by insurgents and the marines have to go in and rescue them, or if the convoy strays into the middle of a firefight and gets shot up by the marines themselves.

Um no it wasn't;

US military chiefs said yesterday that they saw no need for the Iraqi Red Crescent to deliver aid inside Falluja because they did not think any Iraqi civilians were trapped there.

Quote from here

Moriarty wrote:

Perhaps, then again perhaps not. How would you have 'solved' the falluja problem?

Thats trying to isolate what is essentially the newest link in a litany of disasters it's like, I dunno, think of a metaphor;

A guy driving with worn brake discs, crashes his car into a tanker carrying dangerous chemicals which plows into a school, he tries up soak up the spill by throwing vast sums of money thats lying on side of the road from the overturned security truck whose driver has been overcome by the fumes from the crash. I arrive at the scene and ask him "should you be wasting all that money" and he turns to you and says "you got a better way to fix it?", I go "no but I wouldn't be wandering around with worn brake discs in the first place."

Thats one messy metaphor, feel free to add your own to describe Iraq. But essentially to answer your question "how to fix Falluja" there's no easy way to, the problem that are arising are results of decisions that occured before the invasion happened.

Moriarty

Great. So what would you do about falluja? Iraq in general?

Note that digging your head in the sand and hoping it will all go away doesn't work.

mycroft

Note that digging your head in the sand and hoping it will all go away doesn't work.

Nor does utterly ignoring everything I said that doesn't fit into your worldview.

You're asking me what would I do to sort out a situation that I would have done my damnest to avoid.

I'm not a military tactican and don't try to be. What I know is bombing and shelling a city isn't a way to win the hearts and minds of it's people.

You're fighting small terrorists cells that have support from the population that can blend in. If the US keep this up, they're going to be run ragged trying to squash one uprising and six months later another uprising starts.

You're never going to win this war with bombings.

So fall out. Pull back. It won't be one this way. Admit you can't control the entire country. Take major arterties into and out of the country, and several major cities. Hold them. Then start spending oh I dunno the rest of the $18billion earmarked for reconstruction (1 billion so far) use local contractors, engage with local dignataries, fix water power make jobs, make streets secure, give people a sense of control over their lifes. Hold local elections allow candiates to stand. Don't gouge the country for your own interests expand slowly (maybe even years, to regain the country, using local forces)

See that will never EVER happen. So sanctionmoniously preaching to me that the situation needs to get sorted now is absurd. The situation needed to get done properly two years ago and this is the harvest they sowed. It's not going to get fixed in any nice pleasant manner because neither side wants that. Asking my tactics on Falluja is patronizing, because in essence the argument of the people angry about whats going on is pretty much "I told you so".

sovtek

bonkey wrote:

No, you're not understanding me correctly.

My first objection is that a "vague" plan like "let the Iraqis do it themselves...it might work" is simply not an option for any organised operation.

Ok my apologies if I'm not understanding you clearly....but to me it sounds pretty close to my earlier summary.
I never said that I'm going to be able to set out an entire plan. Otherwise I could be getting a nice salary at the UN.
I said that it starts with that. There would have to be negotiations with different factions (including the ones fighting) and an agreement for elections worked out.

The US have a plan, whether we like it or not. They can adapt, modify, and change that plan as events change....but there is always a force in charge of steering events.

Really? I'm not aware of it...and I don't think Bush ever got around to telling anyone what it was before he was elected two weeks ago.
I wouldn't call what they've done so far as adapting.

Letting the Iraqis sort it out themselves basically chops off that head and says "figure out what the new head is yourself lads...and sure....if multiple heads appear, I'm sure you can all figure that one out peacefully". I don't support that option.

I never said that either. You bring in the UN. However local leaders were choosen could be set up again and monitored by the UN. Then they put those candidates up for election.

On the other hand, if you look at the notion of holding elections...other than the idea of banning "undesireable" parties (which I object to), you have a structured plan which is designed to let the Iraqi people figure out exactly the same stuff....but without rendering the nation headless while this happens.

So far the American plan for elections does not let the Iraqi people choose and they never will as long as they are controlling the situation because that was never their intention in the first place.

I also don't have faith that the Americans can turn this around. I believe that the only way this can be turned around is if the Americans are a prime force in that occurrence...which will require a change in their modus operandi. They're not doing it fully correctly right now....but that doesn't mean that the only other option is to remove them.

I'm not sure if we agree here or not. I'm not sure what you mean by prime force. If it means that they are effectively left in control...then we disagree...if you mean that they may need to supply troops, etc etc, then yes.

Whereas the reisistance has shown nothing but contempt for the will of the Iraqi people who believe in the US, as well as contempt for the well-being of anyone who is in the way of their struggle...

But they seem to have at least the indifference of the majority of Iraqis.
Not that I'm condoning some of their tactics.

Exactly. Never mind them. You obviously don't mind leaving the nation at the mercy of the other armed forces (i.e. the resistance/insurrectionists/whatever-today's-term-is) who have comitted war-crimes, so I don't see why you should distinguish between the two.

I mentioned the war crime because they shed light on the motivations for invasion which doesn't bode well for their being in control of the country.
And I will say again....I never said that the resistance should be left in control.
I'm distinguishing between the two because it's quite likely that the majority of the resistance is merely fighting the occupation whereas the Americans are there for their own interests (well the narrow interests of the Bush regime).

Personally, I'd have more faith in the US' war-crimes being held up for account than those of the Iraqi factions who would

Possibly but I doubt it...unless you just mean the individuals that actually carried them out and not the ones who ordered them.

- much like the Afghan warlords - be left in effective charge following a pullout....

The Afghan warlords were the American "Allies".
I'll say again...resistance....not left in charge.

and that this, coupled with the (presumably) higher level of training, the existence of a formal chain-of-accountability, rules, laws, and the rest would give me hope that the US soldiers would be a better option, as long as they were responsibly directed from on high.

Or how about all those good things under the control of the UN?

When you get half a dozen different people telling you how obvious the motives were, but each one producing different "obvious" motives...sooner or later you have to wonder exactly what is, and is not, obvious.

Obvious to those paying attention.

I would also point you back to where I said that if what you want to do is fix things, then the question is how to fix them....not who did what in the breaking of them.

Again I illustrate who did what in breaking things because it is central to the problem and their course of action in the future.

SkepticOne

mycroft wrote:

Thats trying to isolate what is essentially the newest link in a litany of disasters it's like, I dunno, think of a metaphor;

A guy driving with worn brake discs, crashes his car into a tanker carrying dangerous chemicals which plows into a school, he tries up soak up the spill by throwing vast sums of money thats lying on side of the road from the overturned security truck whose driver has been overcome by the fumes from the crash. I arrive at the scene and ask him "should you be wasting all that money" and he turns to you and says "you got a better way to fix it?", I go "no but I wouldn't be wandering around with worn brake discs in the first place."

Thats one messy metaphor, feel free to add your own to describe Iraq. But essentially to answer your question "how to fix Falluja" there's no easy way to, the problem that are arising are results of decisions that occured before the invasion happened.

So the solution, ultimately, is to go back in time and not invade in the first place.

So fall out. Pull back. It won't be one this way. Admit you can't control the entire country. Take major arterties into and out of the country, and several major cities.

The downside of this is that it gives the green card to insurgents to try and control as much of the country as possible in the sortest space of time before the elections. If the elections are to go ahead, then no ground can be given up and a serious attempt to regain full control must be made.

mycroft

SkepticOne wrote:

So the solution, ultimately, is to go back in time and not invade in the first place.

No but asking someone who's said from the start that this war was being fought for the wrong reasons and the wrong tactics to offer a solution to problem they were saying was going to happen isn't an argument.

The downside of this is that it gives the green card to insurgents to try and control as much of the country as possible in the sortest space of time before the elections. If the elections are to go ahead, then no ground can be given up and a serious attempt to regain full control must be made.

Yeah but the point is they're insurgents, let them cry "revolution" and "jihad" and fire their Ak 47s in the air in victory as the american invaders depart.

Then wait a few weeks and watch as the ordinary people turn on the insurgents when they can't get clean water, or electricity or jobs, and let them turn around and see the US troops and elected local Iraqi leaders and jobs and food, in the US held sectors.

This won't be last uprising and it certainly won't be the bloodest, the situation isn't getting any better and current US tactics aren't inproving it.

chill

mycroft wrote:

And I find myself thinking more and more of the fall of berlin and how so many tactics used by the US today are similar in theory (but not as vicious) to the behaviour of the forces of the USSR and 3rd Reich, but wrapped in a veneer of acceptability due to postive media spin, and the reprenhisible behaviour of a small troop of hardcore extremists, who gain support and legitmacy every time the US commit another abuse.

In that case I suggest you know little or nothing about the 'practices' of the Red army and the Nazis.

The collective punishment of Falluja, the decision that all men between 15-55 must leave the city or be considered enemy combatants, is againist the geneva convention.

The US army acted to save the lives of the citizens of Fellujah. An admirable action and nothing to do with the Geneva Convention.

The taking of the Falluja's main hospitial declaring it a source of enemy propaganda (lists of the dead) is one of the most contemptable pieces of justification I've heard.

Another excellent military action based on the opccupation of the 'hospital' almost exclusively by terrorists. Unless you have evidence to the contrary ? Nothing to do with the Geneva Convention.

The banning of red crest personal from entering Falluja because the military "have the situation in hand", is like the two above againist the geneva convention.

A common practice during particularly intensive battles and saved many aid workers lives. An excellent decision and nothing to do with the Convention.

In stark contrast to the booby trapping of casualties by the insurgents... no where do you comment on whether this is ok under any convention ? and the booby trapping of wounded... is this allowed under any convention ? Your contribution seems pretty one sided... no surprise there though.

It seems that the US are now using the justification that this is a new kind of war to merely circumnagivate the rules of engagement that made things awkward and yet have not bothered to initated any real alternative to protect the people they are liberating. They're not firing 100mm shells at civilians trying to flee the battle, but they are killing civilians either directly or indirectly in a wholy unjustifable way.

I'd love to see any reference you have for this claim that they are using a 'new kind of war' in Fallujah, because I haven't seen it. It is a bitter house to house battle that they appear to have fought amazingly successfully, with incredible bravoury and valour. I congratulate each and every one of them. Hopefully that is a few thousand less mass murdering insurgents, mainly from other countries, whose sole purpose was to murder as many civilians and soldiers as possible..... I didn't see you comment on that anywhere .... and which convention deals with that then ?

I'm aware this is nothing that's not been said before, and better, and on this thread, I was just struck by the similarities between the two events, and wonder has anything really changed in 60 years.

Nothing among the pacifists and anti american brigade it seems.

Tuars

I'd love to see any reference you have for this claim that they are using a 'new kind of war' in Fallujah, because I haven't seen it.

This is part of the problem. The Marines are using 2nd Generation war tactics whereas their oponents are using 4th Generation war tactics.

This is an example of a 4th Generation tactic that the US should be using.

the point is they're insurgents, let them cry "revolution" and "jihad" and fire their Ak 47s in the air in victory as the american invaders depart.

Then wait a few weeks and watch as the ordinary people turn on the insurgents when they can't get clean water, or electricity or jobs, and let them turn around and see the US troops and elected local Iraqi leaders and jobs and food, in the US held sectors.

This article gives a good summary of what I'm on about: http://www.counterpunch.org/lind10222004.html

I don't dispute the courage or integrity of the Marines. I would question how useful their tactics are, though.

mycroft

chill wrote:

The US army acted to save the lives of the citizens of Fellujah. An admirable action and nothing to do with the Geneva Convention.

And preventing the red cresent to enter the city was what? And bombing the city was what? Bombing them to save them. And occupying the cities only hosiptial so they couldn't get help?

Another excellent military action based on the opccupation of the 'hospital' almost exclusively by terrorists. Unless you have evidence to the contrary ? Nothing to do with the Geneva Convention.

Do you have any evidence that it was occupied almost exclusively by terrorists? Do you?

Because the report that I read is that the US army encountered only doctors, patients and nurses. SO please some evidence to support your claim.

In stark contrast to the booby trapping of casualties by the insurgents... no where do you comment on whether this is ok under any convention ? and the booby trapping of wounded... is this allowed under any convention ? Your contribution seems pretty one sided... no surprise there though.

Quiet the opposite, in fact if you'd even have taken the trouble to read the link I proved above you see a post pointing out that this is SOP and tactically makes sense for the US to shoot bodies.

As for the booby trapping of dead, again what do you want me to say. The enemy throws out the rule book, do you do the same?

I'd love to see any reference you have for this claim that they are using a 'new kind of war' in Fallujah, because I haven't seen it. It is a bitter house to house battle that they appear to have fought amazingly successfully, with incredible bravoury and valour. I congratulate each and every one of them. Hopefully that is a few thousand less mass murdering insurgents, mainly from other countries, whose sole purpose was to murder as many civilians and soldiers as possible..... I didn't see you comment on that anywhere .... and which convention deals with that then ?

I was refering to the "new kind of war" that the US administration has consistently said it is fighting since S11

Now can you provide any evidence that the majority of fighters in Fallujah are foreign. Would a link be too much to ask?

bonkey

sovtek wrote:

Again I illustrate who did what in breaking things because it is central to the problem and their course of action in the future.

Yup, but I think we're talking somewhat at cross-purposes here.

I have said that I believe the US cannot and should not pull out of Iraq. Nowhere have I suggested that they must remain in charge, nor that they should - in any way - continue along they path they are continuing.

My only belief is that the US - with both their military might and their political sway - will be a necessary part of a solution. Like you, I have no idea what that solution will be. I do firmly believe that continuing as they are continuing (especially bearing some of the comments re: whats happening today in Fallujah) is wrong, but I also believe that the US pulling out of Iraq is equally wrong.

Concerning whether or not the US can/should be left in charge....I'm simply unconvinced that no matter how crap a job we may think the US are making of things, there is currently no-one as capable of turning this around as the US themselves, were they to change direction.

As for this:

chill wrote:

The US army acted to save the lives of the citizens of Fellujah. An admirable action and nothing to do with the Geneva Convention.

Unfortunately, despite what you may wish Chill, the Geneva Convention applies whether you feel the moves were tactically perfect or not. It is a violation of the Geneva Convention to inflict a general punishment on a civilian populace, no matter how sensible it may seem to you. The law doesn't actually care whether it was a good tactical move or not. The Geneva Conventions exist primarily to protect cilviians, wounded and captured, not to make life easy for the active military.

Quote:
The taking of the Falluja's main hospitial declaring it a source of enemy propaganda (lists of the dead) is one of the most contemptable pieces of justification I've heard.

Another excellent military action based on the opccupation of the 'hospital' almost exclusively by terrorists. Unless you have evidence to the contrary ?

Errr....and given that you've admitted to not having any objective sources of information in the past.....you know that this is propaganda how? And that there were terrorists there, how? At best, it could only be "because the military said it was so"....and that must make it true, right?

Regardless...

Nothing to do with the Geneva Convention.

Ginna have to disagree on that one again. Denying civilians the use of a civilian facility after any insrgents that may have been there have been removed and the building secured is almost definitely something to do with the Geneva Convention. So unless the military are actively fighting it out inside that building (or in a standoff) against armed enemy, then I'm afraid your wishes don't change anything again.

Oh...and just while I think of it:

Moriarty wrote:

but are the geneva conventions realistic in todays world? That's an honest question.

And its a fair one. Of course, the problem would be who would draw up GC2...and - more importantly - how long would it take to ratify into existence.

It should be (but may not be), however an utterly irrelevant question. The US ratified the Geneva Conventions, and as such they effectively form a part of US Constitutional Law. Technically, its not in the control of the Administration to decide whether or not their actions were in breach, even under US Law. Realistically....well....thats why the question only should be irrelevant.

jc

Sand

Of course it is an early Christmas present for those gagging to find something to attack the army about. Pity.

Yeah, but it still needs to be investigated. From what xmi5e3 said, it sounds like the marine in question had just cause to not trust enemy wounded to be out of the fight, and the fact the marine yelled out that "hes ****ing faking hes dead" or some such before shooting him, and he was the only one shot in a room of wounded, would lead you to belive the marine thought the guy was booby trapped or a suicide bomber.

Still, it needs to be looked at if only to remind everyone involved that there are rules. Abu Gharib went on so long because there wasnt enough vigilance.

I just (at around 2am) Antony Beevor's The fall of Berlin the harrowing tales of Russia troops rape of civilians, collective puinishment, and the disregard of civilians esp women and children puts alot of whats happening in perpective. US troop behaviour is appalling but this is war. In war terrible things happened. This article is by a former Para and details why he thinks the US soldier's shooting was justified and standard operating procedure.

I read that book recently when I was over in Zurich. If anything I was struck by how alien the scale of the warfare was - Russian artillery barrages where there was a gun firing for every 4 meters of front line for example - it really shows how little grasp we have of what terms like carpet bombing mean when we see the USAF accused of carpet bombing cities; thankfully too.

The collective punishment of Falluja, the decision that all men between 15-55 must leave the city or be considered enemy combatants, is againist the geneva convention.

Only common sense - you can hardly guarantee civillian saftey to go to the shops, pick up the milk and papers, play a bit of lotto and drop back all whilst walking through a warzone where combatants deliberately dress as civillians and use civillians as cover!

Under the geneva conventions it is the responsibility of the defending power to evacuate cities being fought in as far as I remember. There is/was no legitimate defending power in Fallujah so the US basically posted advance warning for civillians to get out. Hardly collective punishment.

It's a fair point and I understand where you're coming from, but are the geneva conventions realistic in todays world? That's an honest question. I feel they're not, as they (naturally) haven't accounted for the massive changes in warfare since they were created. There's a real need for Geneva Convetions [Mark II].

I dont think so. The Geneva conventions are pretty good rules, with only the exception that theyre framed to govern conflicts between governments, nations or revolutionary armies/guerillas who either wish to maintain or claim legitimacy in international circles.

Where the likes of Al Queda sponsored terrorists groups that do not recognise any other rules of behaviour beyond Islamic law as interpreted by them ( Theyre apparently good to kill another 4 million westerners, including another 1 million children, on the cosmic scoreboard regardless of who they are or how they kill them ) are supposed to fit in to this is......debateable. Theyre not a crinimal group, but theyre not soldiers either.

The other problem is that the G.C. rules that all POW have to be released at the end of a conflict - what conflict is being fought and how long its going to go on for is dependant on who you talk to. Is Afghanistan a seperate conflict, or just another theatre in the 1st islamic world jihad? Should prisoners taken in Afghanistan be released now or held indefinitly until all Al Queda is completely destroyed? You cant question them either under the GC which means you cant interrogate them for information on their terrorist buddies which is vital for preventing future attacks.

So I dont think the problem is with the GC itself, but merely how its applied. Certainly the GC should apply to how the US conducts itself in the defeat of terrorists in Fallujah.

And preventing the red cresent to enter the city was what? And bombing the city was what? Bombing them to save them. And occupying the cities only hosiptial so they couldn't get help?

Red Cresent - Last I heard was that there was only an estimated 150 families left in Fallujah and that was at the beginning of the US conquest. The Red Cresents efforts are better concentrated on the 300,000 civillians who evacuated the city I would have thought rather than doing their best to get shot up in a warzone and need to be rescued by the marines, who claim theyre providing assistance to any civillians in Fallujah themselves.

Bombing - Standard military practice, where you have airpower you use it?

Hospital - Sorry, have the US been preventing wounded civillians from receiving medical aid?

Then wait a few weeks and watch as the ordinary people turn on the insurgents when they can't get clean water, or electricity or jobs, and let them turn around and see the US troops and elected local Iraqi leaders and jobs and food, in the US held sectors.

Sorry, isnt that what theyve beent trying for the past year or so - to reach some sort of accomadation with the terrorists in Fallujah? Hell, the marines are probably being shot at by the same weapons they gave the "compromise force" to police Fallujah last time when your logic prevailed and a deal with the terrorists was attempted rather than going in and winning. All thats happened is that Fallujah became a base for the terrorists to strike at efforts to normalise Iraq elsewhere.

Its not nice, but its impossible to normalise Iraq when you yield bases to the enemy to attack you.

As for the booby trapping of dead, again what do you want me to say. The enemy throws out the rule book, do you do the same?

Nope, but you allow for the fact that enemy wounded arent necessarily out of the fight as assumed by the GC.

shltter

bonkey wrote:

My only belief is that the US - with both their military might and their political sway - will be a necessary part of a solution. Like you, I have no idea what that solution will be. I do firmly believe that continuing as they are continuing (especially bearing some of the comments re: whats happening today in Fallujah) is wrong, but I also believe that the US pulling out of Iraq is equally wrong.

Concerning whether or not the US can/should be left in charge....I'm simply unconvinced that no matter how crap a job we may think the US are making of things, there is currently no-one as capable of turning this around as the US themselves, were they to change direction.



jc

The US are the problem and the only way that the US can contribute to a resolution is to withdraw
i can not see any peace in Iraq as long as the US are occupying the country
unless they manage to kill every Iraqi that opposes them
which of course they seem hell bent on doing

shltter

Sand wrote:

Red Cresent - Last I heard was that there was only an estimated 150 families left in Fallujah and that was at the beginning of the US conquest. The Red Cresents efforts are better concentrated on the 300,000 civillians who evacuated the city I would have thought rather than doing their best to get shot up in a warzone and need to be rescued by the marines, who claim theyre providing assistance to any civillians in Fallujah themselves..

last estimate i heard there was about 40,000 people left in Fallujah when the americans attacked
and i think the red cresent are in a better position than you to determine where they are needed the most

Sand wrote:

Bombing - Standard military practice, where you have airpower you use it?.

yes but if you are the only ones with airpower dont be surprised when your enemy figures out that cant win in a conventional battle and resorts to guerilla tactics and suicide bombings

Sand wrote:

Sorry, isnt that what theyve beent trying for the past year or so - to reach some sort of accomadation with the terrorists in Fallujah? Hell, the marines are probably being shot at by the same weapons they gave the "compromise force" to police Fallujah last time when your logic prevailed and a deal with the terrorists was attempted rather than going in and winning. All thats happened is that Fallujah became a base for the terrorists to strike at efforts to normalise Iraq elsewhere.?.

can you not call iraqi people resisting occupation by a foreign power terrorists
they are resistance
terrorists is such a loaded word

the question is who is in who's country
who is a terrorist???

Sand

can you not call iraqi people resisting occupation by a foreign power terrorists

I call people who kidnap and execute civillians terrorists. If you dont like it you can ... develop a sense of humour about it.

chill

mycroft wrote:

And preventing the red cresent to enter the city was what? And bombing the city was what? Bombing them to save them. And occupying the cities only hosiptial so they couldn't get help?

Good military tactics. The Hospital was in terrosist hands, the city was almost deserted. Good solid military tactics.

Do you have any evidence that it was occupied almost exclusively by terrorists? Do you?

Only tv reports.. Do you have ANY evidence that there were any civilians left in the hospital ? The name of being a "Hospital" is no reason to give it special status if it is not being used AS a hospital.

As for the booby trapping of dead, again what do you want me to say. The enemy throws out the rule book, do you do the same?

No... and thankfully the US army doesn't either. But you are intent on reading the worst possible potentiality on the US army while ignoring the atrocities of the insurgents who are not even Iraqi people.

I was refering to the "new kind of war" that the US administration has consistently said it is fighting since S11

I know. And it is utterly irrelavant to the battel being fought in Fallujah in relation to which you invokes the reference.

Now can you provide any evidence that the majority of fighters in Fallujah are foreign. Would a link be too much to ask?

It has been covered thousands of times since the liberation that these insurgents are amost exclusively Chechnians, Iranians and others who have come to fight in Iraq.

chill

shltter wrote:

last estimate i heard there was about 40,000 people left in Fallujah when the americans attacked
and i think the red cresent are in a better position than you to determine where they are needed the most /QUOTE]
I seriously doubt it.

can you not call iraqi people resisting occupation by a foreign power terrorists

They are not iraqis.... but foreign imported fighters from Chechnya, Iran and other countries.

they are resistance

No. They are terrorists who slaughter Iraqi people by the dozens on a daily basis.

terrorists is such a loaded word

And an accurate one.

the question is who is in who's country
who is a terrorist???

The insurgents are terrorists. The Allies are liberators. The Iraqi army are fighting to support the goal of elections and deomcracy. All verry clear to those willing to look.

cdebru

Sand wrote:

I call people who kidnap and execute civillians terrorists. If you dont like it you can ... develop a sense of humour about it.

ok so you are going to tar everyone with the one brush and everyone in fallujah is responsible for the actions of a small group

A Dub in Glasgo

chill wrote:

It has been covered thousands of times since the liberation that these insurgents are amost exclusively Chechnians, Iranians and others who have come to fight in Iraq.

Interesting that considering that a US Marine Corps officer has stated that they have captured 1,050 'insurgents' and no more than 24 were from outside Iraq! Can you square the circle please?