Cancer Rate in Fallujah Worse than Hiroshima

sponsoredwalk

TBH it's very difficult to wade through the Fallujah stories online & try to
find concrete answers but I'll keep it going.

Basically if the tactics Moran talked about are all indeed true & legal
then maybe it's about time the rules of war were drastically changed
because this is ludicrous.

I have a question to put to people as regards the war, I've read that
the U.N. regarded the invasion as a breach of international law while
the U.S. claimed they were basically antiquaited laws.

IF anyone has credible links on both sides of these topics
please share.

gizmo

Terry wrote: »

This is a facepalm moment if there ever was one.
How do you not realise that your army is the enemy?
Your army was the invading force. The so called "insurgents" are fighting against an invading army.

You do realise that were it not for the insurgent threat, the US would be able to withdraw from the region more quickly?

Lieutenant General Babakir Zebari said: 'At this point, the withdrawal is going well, because they are still here.

'But the problem will start after 2011 - the politicians must find other ways to fill the void after 2011,' he said.

'If I were asked about the withdrawal, I would say to politicians: the US army must stay until the Iraqi army is fully ready in 2020.'

Why do you think he'd say that? Because if there isn't a strong force in place the religious fundamentalists on either side will rip each other apart in what will more than likely be a prolonged civil war in which no one will are how many innocent civilians got caught in the crossfire. Your so called "patriots" are nothing but a bunch of animals.

Terry wrote: »

I'll pose the same scenario to you as I did to Poccington.
If the U.S. was invaded by, let's say China (because you may have WMD's or you nuked Tehran or something), in the morning, then a year down the line the Chinese still have control.
They use your local primary school as a military base.
You go out with the locals and protest against this move, and then they kill 17 of the protestors.
What would you do?

The point is moot as you're describing two different scenarios. The force in your example would be a permanent occupying force. The US are in the process of pulling out and are handing the country over to the newly formed Iraqi government. Once which can be elected by the people rather than the horrific situation they were in before hand.

WakeUp

gizmo wrote: »

Unfortunately there seem to be quite a few of these people on our CT forum and it is that caliber of CT, let's say enthusiast, that I would label as nuts. If you don't fall into that category then good for you but calling me "weak" and "narrow minded" for calling some these insane theories out is amusing to say the least.

I think you missed my point to be honest but let us move on.

Anyway, back to the thread...

Couldn’t agree more.

Well again all of that depends on a) whether you think that the Iraqi war was actually illegal and b) despite it's legality in the eyes of the international community, were it's objectives in any way noble. In both cases I think there is space for debate however inflammatory articles like those posted in this thread do nothing to foster this debate.

It was blatantly illegal based on lies and greed. Are you familiar with Colin Powell’s speech to the UN in 2003?. Are you familiar with comments he made some years after that speech. Do you believe they didn’t lie to push the invasion upon the world. Do you believe they are genuinely in Iraq to spread “freedom”?..

And what about the Sunni radicals using the opportunity to blow the **** out of the Shi'a and vice versa? Are those people patriots too and can that behavior be justified?

I would argue that this would not be happening if the US and British didn’t lie their way in there in the first place. What about all the people they blew up and continue to blow up in their crusade for freedom?

Local-womanizer

sponsoredwalk wrote: »

TBH it's very difficult to wade through the Fallujah stories online & try to find concrete answers but I'll keep it going.

Why not stick with the answers that are concrete then....

sponsoredwalk wrote: »

Basically if the tactics Moran talked about are all indeed true & legal
then maybe it's about time the rules of war were drastically changed
because this is ludicrous.

They are,unfortunate it may be,but coalition troops are already at a disadvantage when it comes to fighting. The insurgents dont think twice of using disabled people to carry bombs into busy market places killing soldiers and innocent civilians.....

Manic Moran

Terry wrote: »

Hurray for legal ways of killing people.
Your army must be so proud of their ability to take the lives of hundreds of thousands of innocent people in a legal way.

Like them or not, those are the rules. We can either try to abide by them or not.

This is a facepalm moment if there ever was one.
How do you not realise that your army is the enemy?
Your army was the invading force. The so called "insurgents" are fighting against an invading army.

When did I ever claim otherwise? From the insurgents' point of view, yes, we were the enemy. From our point of view, the insurgents were were enemy. After spending many microseconds attempting to decide whether or not the people shooting at us were to be considered the enemy and that we would try to defeat them (Probably about as long as they spent considering the issue about us), the issue then became how to set about it. That's where the laws of land warfare come into play. Whether the war was justified or not is irrelevant to the actions undertaken as it is being carried out. Jus ad bellum vs Jus in bello. The distinction has been accepted for a while now.

Let's say you decided to fight back. Would you refer to yourself as an insurgent?

I like to be specific. I'd pick 'guerilla.' (Insurgent is a more general term which can encompass both guerillas and terrorists, for example)

Basically if the tactics Moran talked about are all indeed true & legal then maybe it's about time the rules of war were drastically changed because this is ludicrous.

One of my personal philosophical worries is over this trend to try to 'sanitize' warfare. There is no 'nice' way I can think of to die on the battlefield, I think this movement to get rid of the 'nasty' ways to die is ultimately counterproductive. The more people decide to believe that a war is a civilised way of settling disputes, that it's a nice, neat thing which kills combatants quickly and doesn't hurt non-combatants to any great extent, the more likely that war will be used as a means of attaining objectives. If it remains something rather horrific, people might at least think twice about it.

NTM

Nodin

gizmo wrote: »

You do realise that were it not for the insurgent threat, the US would be able to withdraw from the region more quickly?
.

Really...? Because....(and forgetting about the fact that if they weren't there, there wouldn't have been any 'insurgents')

gizmo wrote: »

The point is moot as you're describing two different scenarios. The force in your example would be a permanent occupying force. The US are in the process of pulling out and are handing the country over to the newly formed Iraqi government. Once which can be elected by the people rather than the horrific situation they were in before hand.

...they're actually keeping 4-5 bases and about 40,000 men there, afaik. They just won't be engaged in combat missions....Permanent base in a state dependent on it for financial and military support, looks like.

gizmo

WakeUp wrote: »

It was blatantly illegal based on lies and greed. Are you familiar with Colin Powell’s speech to the UN in 2003?. Are you familiar with comments he made some years after that speech. Do you believe they didn’t lie to push the invasion upon the world. Do you believe they are genuinely in Iraq to spread “freedom”?..

The speech designed to garner support for Resolution 1441? Yep, and to be honest it's impossible to condone it. As for the lying, well as Christopher Hitchens pointed out in a debate awhile back, the issue of WMDs wasn't the sole reason they went in however it was the one they, incorrectly as it turns out, pushed the most and it was also the one the media latched onto. I'll try and root out the interview in question as it was quite interesting.

WakeUp wrote: »

I would argue that this would not be happening if the US and British didn’t lie their way in there in the first place. What about all the people they blew up and continue to blow up in their crusade for freedom?

While I don't think one can ever justify the deaths of innocent people, I still believe the Iraqi people will be better off in the future with their new government rather than under the Hussein dictatorship.

Nodin wrote: »

Really...? Because....(and forgetting about the fact that if they weren't there, there wouldn't have been any 'insurgents')

Nope, there would have just been more incidents like in Dujail and we could be bitching about them in AH just like we do when the Taliban/Islamic fundamentalists do something similarly horrifying.

AskMyChocolate

Manic Moran wrote: »

Like them or not, those are the rules. We can either try to abide by them or not.



When did I ever claim otherwise? From the insurgents' point of view, yes, we were the enemy. From our point of view, the insurgents were were enemy. After spending many microseconds attempting to decide whether or not the people shooting at us were to be considered the enemy and that we would try to defeat them (Probably about as long as they spent considering the issue about us), the issue then became how to set about it. That's where the laws of land warfare come into play. Whether the war was justified or not is irrelevant to the actions undertaken as it is being carried out. Jus ad bellum vs Jus in bello. The distinction has been accepted for a while now.



I like to be specific. I'd pick 'guerilla.' (Insurgent is a more general term which can encompass both guerillas and terrorists, for example)



One of my personal philosophical worries is over this trend to try to 'sanitize' warfare. There is no 'nice' way I can think of to die on the battlefield, I think this movement to get rid of the 'nasty' ways to die is ultimately counterproductive. The more people decide to believe that a war is a civilised way of settling disputes, that it's a nice, neat thing which kills combatants quickly and doesn't hurt non-combatants to any great extent, the more likely that war will be used as a means of attaining objectives. If it remains something rather horrific, people might at least think twice about it.

NTM

Really interesting post there,mate. I'd just say a couple of things. When you say "Those are the rules" you mean those are your rules. In the same way the USA does not respect the International Criminal Court or the Kyoto agreement. Also, you say you would use the term "guerilla" and yet quite clearly, earlier in your post, you have used the term "insurgents" on several occasions.
Personally, I don't think you would use the term "guerilla" if the situations were reversed, as it tends to be a neutral term used dispassionately.

I am fairly certain you would use "resistance" as you did with the French and Dutch during WW2 if for no other reason than you're a senior officer and it would be the best word to use in terms of recruitment and local solidarity.

Found the last part of your post really interesting. It is a tricky one. Do we perpetuate the horror of war in order to provide a deterrent? Dunno. I certainly am truly grateful to have lived my whole life in Western Europe in a country (down south) where we've never known that horror firsthand.

The_Minister

Nodin wrote: »

Really...? Because....(and forgetting about the fact that if they weren't there, there wouldn't have been any 'insurgents').

The insurgents are not fighting against the Americans, they are also fighting against other Iraqis. Each group wants to seize power of their area once the US leaves.

Taking the US out of the equation just means that they turn on the other Iraqis.

ScumLord

So what your saying is the Iraqis have loads of Uranium that they could make WMDs out of?

Nodin

gizmo wrote:

Nope, there would have just been more incidents like in Dujail

....you seem to be confusing the power and reach of the regime pre- and post- Gulf war 1. You're also not considering the potential risks and consequences - some already showing - of a US presence next to Iran and in the gulf.

gizmo wrote:

for the lying, well as Christopher Hitchens pointed out in a debate awhile back, the issue of WMDs wasn't the sole reason

..it wasn't the sole reason given, however it was about the only one that could make a case for a legal war and be sold to the US public. The idea that these people - who had dealt with Saddam at the height of his power and the oppression of his own population - suddenly felt pity for the ordinary Iraqi is laughable.

The_Minister wrote: »

The insurgents are not fighting against the Americans, they are also fighting against other Iraqis. Each group wants to seize power of their area once the US leaves.

'not just fighting against the Americans' maybe.

But was any of this happening before the US presence? Iraq was a no-go zone for al qaeda before the US arrived.

nacho libre

Nodin wrote: »

..

..it wasn't the sole reason given, however it was about the only one that could make a case for a legal war and be sold to the US public. The idea that these people - who had dealt with Saddam at the height of his power and the oppression of his own population - suddenly felt pity for the ordinary Iraqi is laughable.


.

yes. it's nauseating hypocrisy to see people still pedalling humanitarian reasons as a motivation for the Iraq war.


With this in mind I doubt those defending America over the Iraq invasion would try to defend Russia over Chechyna by putting forward noble objectives. the idea that America or Russia go to war for anything other than strategic or economic gain is nonsense

Manic Moran

AskMyChocolate wrote: »

Really interesting post there,mate. I'd just say a couple of things. When you say "Those are the rules" you mean those are your rules. In the same way the USA does not respect the International Criminal Court or the Kyoto agreement.

I believe you'll find that those are the rules in force throughout the world. Look up the Geneva Conventions or Hague Declarations and you will find nothing which contravenes what I have posted above. Even in the cases where the US has refused to sign, such as Dublin or Ottawa, the US has made strides to develop munitions which meet the requirements.

Also, you say you would use the term "guerilla" and yet quite clearly, earlier in your post, you have used the term "insurgents" on several occasions.
Personally, I don't think you would use the term "guerilla" if the situations were reversed, as it tends to be a neutral term used dispassionately.

Much though I like to be specific, I also dislike being inaccurate. I cannot say with any confidence that the opposition acting in a guerilla-like manner today did not also plant a bomb in a marketplace yesterday. As a result, 'insurgent' is a nice, safe term. In country, I tend to use the term 'The opposition'.

I am fairly certain you would use "resistance" as you did with the French and Dutch during WW2 if for no other reason than you're a senior officer and it would be the best word to use in terms of recruitment and local solidarity.

I'm not that senior. However, I was addressing the legal implications. 'Resistance' can be either within the laws of warfare or not. Guerillas tend to be.

But was any of this happening before the US presence? Iraq was a no-go zone for al qaeda before the US arrived.

No reason to believe that once the strong-man that was Saddam was gone due to natural causes that the country might not have turned into a 'go' zone for Al Qaeda afterwards either. Europeans need not look beyond their continent to find a relatively recent example of what happens when the central control of a country made of diverse ethnic populations who don't get on all that well vanishes and the chaos which can result.

NTM

SEANYBOY1

I remember seeing Iraqi people with leaflets about this many years ago in Dublin city centre. Tank sheels with depleted uranium tips which can burn through armoured plating like a knife through butter. Just remember when there is a dirty bomb in the states that they where the first ones to use them.
I'm sure 99% of US citizens or their army havent a clue what their animal of an army is doing on behalf of the CIA world wide. Bet they dont know the real reason they went in for part 2, cause Iraq threatened to sell oil in Euro's which would have devalued the dollar over night. Now there is no way uncle sam would stand idely by for that one

Manic Moran

AskMyChocolate wrote: »

Found the last part of your post really interesting. It is a tricky one. Do we perpetuate the horror of war in order to provide a deterrent? Dunno. I certainly am truly grateful to have lived my whole life in Western Europe in a country (down south) where we've never known that horror firsthand.

Well, here's my other gripe about these attempts to try to 'civilise' warfare. They don't work. Take the two currently well-known treaties that the US has thus far refused to sign: Ottawa and Dublin.

Ottawa is a prohibition on certain anti-personnel land mines. Two stated purposes: One is to reduce the effect on people after the war is over, the other is to reduce the suffering to the soldiers by these victim-operated systems. The first is easy: Build a self-destruct feature into the munitions. This was already covered under the Geveva Protocols. The second is ridiculous. All that happens now is that instead of going 'bang' immediately, the mine sends a signal to an operator who then pushes the button and the thing goes 'bang' a second later. I'm sure the victim will be so pleased that he has been peppered by fragmentation from a few feet away as opposed to... well... a few feet away (bounding mines dating back to WWII) or directly below.

Similarly, the main difference between the US's latest munitions which contravene the Dublin treaty and those which don't is the number of submunitions. All the other requirements of sensors, self-destruct features etc can be met. You just need to fire a half-dozen Dublin-legal rounds under Dublin to have the same effect as one non-Dublin-Legal round. The effects on the people at the other end are... well.. pretty much identical.

What's the point? Other than trying to make people feel good about themselves and warfare? Is that really a useful goal?

Just remember when there is a dirty bomb in the states that they where the first ones to use them.

Dirty bombs tend to have levels of radiation a bit higher than background noise, and of slightly more dangerous types than alpha rays.

NTM

biko

Manic Moran wrote: »

Start quoting chapter and verse from the regulations, please, when making claims of unlawfulness.

You will note that:
1) It is legal to use WP as an incendiary weapon to burn people to death. Kindof poor PR, but legal. It is also legal to use it to start fires and such like, particularly for equipment.

2) There is no blanket prohibition on the use of WP (or any other incendiary weapon) delivered by ground systems such as artillery, tanks, flamethrowers or hand grenades within a city or other such urban area.

Sorry I haven't read all your posts but I don't see your link to back up legal claims in this post. Legal according to who? Geneva or US rules of engagement?

Edit it was not allowed before, was it changed?
http://web.archive.org/web/20010430200039/http://www-cgsc.army.mil/ctac/refpubs/ST100-3/c5/5sect3.htm

Burster Type White phosphorus (WP M110A2) rounds burn with intense heat and emit dense white smoke. They may be used as the initial rounds in the smokescreen to rapidly create smoke or against material targets, such as Class V sites or logistic sites. It is against the law of land warfare to employ WP against personnel targets.

AskMyChocolate

Manic Moran wrote: »

I believe you'll find that those are the rules in force throughout the world. Look up the Geneva Conventions or Hague Declarations and you will find nothing which contravenes what I have posted above. Even in the cases where the US has refused to sign, such as Dublin or Ottawa, the US has made strides to develop munitions which meet the requirements.



Much though I like to be specific, I also dislike being inaccurate. I cannot say with any confidence that the opposition acting in a guerilla-like manner today did not also plant a bomb in a marketplace yesterday. As a result, 'insurgent' is a nice, safe term. In country, I tend to use the term 'The opposition'.



I'm not that senior. However, I was addressing the legal implications. 'Resistance' can be either within the laws of warfare or not. Guerillas tend to be.



No reason to believe that once the strong-man that was Saddam was gone due to natural causes that the country might not have turned into a 'go' zone for Al Qaeda afterwards either. Europeans need not look beyond their continent to find a relatively recent example of what happens when the central control of a country made of diverse ethnic populations who don't get on all that well vanishes and the chaos which can result.

NTM

Thanks for the reply. It is a very tricky situation over there and while a lot of people here on boards (myself included) didn't agree with the war, I understand as a soldier once that decision is taken politically, it is your job to carry out that decision militarily. The use of mercenaries Blackwater et. al was a seriously misguided idea. It seems nothing was learned from the disaster that were the "Black and Tans". Ill-disciplined thugs that wouldn't get through the door of any regular army.
With regard to the highlighted bit, how many bombs went off in market places (and everywhere else) during "Shock and Awe" ?

Oh yeah, and while it's a minor thing in terms of the war, from an Irish perspective, who gave you the right to rendition prisoners through Ireland while engaged in an action that had no UN backing and was illegal. Those American soldiers should have been arrested by the Garda Siochana for kidnapping.
Only we'd never have the bottle, economically, militarily or judicially.:o

Anyway, on a personal note, keep safe and look after yourself.

AMC

gizmo

Nodin wrote: »

....you seem to be confusing the power and reach of the regime pre- and post- Gulf war 1. You're also not considering the potential risks and consequences - some already showing - of a US presence next to Iran and in the gulf.

Dujail is in Iraq though, the regime didn't have to reach very far. As for the US presence in the region agitating Iran, I'd say Israel is doing enough of that for both of them.

Nodin wrote: »

..it wasn't the sole reason given, however it was about the only one that could make a case for a legal war and be sold to the US public. The idea that these people - who had dealt with Saddam at the height of his power and the oppression of his own population - suddenly felt pity for the ordinary Iraqi is laughable.

Have a read of these two articles from the author, they more or less sum up most of my opinions of the issue. One from 2007 and one from 2008. From the latter piece, I think this is one of the most important points to take:

But I would nonetheless maintain that this incompetence I]the handling of the war[/I doesn't condemn the enterprise wholesale.

Now whether you believe this or not is up to you but I find it hard to argue with the points he subsequently lists.

Nodin

gizmo wrote: »

Dujail is in Iraq though, the regime didn't have to reach very far. As for the US presence in the region agitating Iran, I'd say Israel is doing enough of that for both of them.
.

...which ignores the history between the US and Iran, not to mention the difference between real fear and rhetoric.

gizmo wrote: »

Have a read of these two articles from the author, they more or less sum up most of my opinions of the issue. One from 2007 and one from 2008. From the latter piece, I think this is one of the most important points to take:

" But I would nonetheless maintain that this incompetence I]the handling of the war[/I doesn't condemn the enterprise wholesale."

The war was wrong, regardless of its handling, as was the subsequent interference in the structure of the Iraqi state.

gizmo wrote: »

Now whether you believe this or not is up to you but I find it hard to argue with the points he subsequently lists.

Really? Because in all honesty, they aren't very solid.

hitchens wrote:

A much-wanted war criminal was put on public trial..

One could - by means of air or artillery bombardment of certain suburbs - eliminate some major criminals. However the large dead and wounded caused generally rule this out amongst almost all countries as a method of crime prevention.

hitchens wrote:

The Kurdish and Shi'ite majority was rescued from the ever-present threat of a renewed genocide...

The regime had withdrawn all troops from the Kurdish autonomous region following Gulf 1. The area was declared a safe haven by UN resolution and made a 'no fly zone' enforced by the US. The one attempt by Saddam to enter the area resulted in military strikes by the US. A similar watch was kept on Southern Iraq from around 1992.

hitchens wrote:

A huge, hideous military and party apparatus, directed at internal repression and external aggression was (perhaps overhastily) dismantled.
...

...loves the hyperbole, doesn't he? Iraqs military was effectively defanged during and after Gulf 1. Hussein was facing an increasing struggle to hold onto the area still under his control.

hitchens wrote:

The largest wetlands in the region, habitat of the historic Marsh Arabs, have been largely recuperated.

But the sewage and other infrastructural damage means they're getting diseases at greatly heightened levels with an increase in infant mortality
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/2973564.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3922055.stm
And no, there hasn't been much improvement since....
http://www.newser.com/story/43627/sewage-soaks-baghdad-slum.html
http://gorillasguides.com/2010/07/14/iraq-seeping-sewage-hits-fallujah-residents-health/

Not to mention the exodus from the war zone of the middle class medical profession.....
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/jan/16/iraq.international

Hitchens wrote:

Huge fresh oilfields have been found, including in formerly oil-free Sunni provinces, and some important initial investment in them made

...and that couldn't have happened at some stage in the future anyway because.....? Seriously chris.

Manic Moran

biko wrote: »

Sorry I haven't read all your posts but I don't see your link to back up legal claims in this post. Legal according to who? Geneva or US rules of engagement?

Edit it was not allowed before, was it changed?
http://web.archive.org/web/20010430200039/http://www-cgsc.army.mil/ctac/refpubs/ST100-3/c5/5sect3.htm

No, was never changed. That oft-quoted quick reference booklet put together by one of the staff at Leavenworth for the students at Leavenworth is, to put it bluntly, wrong, and fortunately does not have wide distribution. The aid does not cite anything to support the statement, and nobody has as yet been able to provide anything in the laws of war.

It also does not hold legal authority over soldiers. Field Manuals and Army Regulations do. (All manuals and regs in the US are By Order Of someone very high ranking, usually Chief of Staff of the Army or Secretary of the Army)

See FM 27-10, The Law of Land Warfare.
"The use of weapons which employ fire, such as tracer ammunition, flamethrowers, napalm and other incendiary agents, against targets requiring their use is not violative of international law."

Or FM 3-06.11 Combined Arms Operations in Urban Terrain:
"The use of flame weapons, such as Fougasse, the M202A1 Flash, white phosphorous, thermobaric, and other incendiary agents, against targets is not a violation of current international law"

It is important to note the distinction between the Laws of War and Rules of Engagement. RsOE are restrictions above those required by the Laws of War, usually made for political or safety concerns: A commander cannot legally give RsOE which violate the Laws of War. Breaking an ROE is not a war crime if the act does not violate the Laws of War. It is, however, disobedience of a direct order and may be punished as such.

The US military tries to keep the fine details simple for the soldier. If it's not legal for use against personnel, the Army doesn't issue it to you. They realise that in a pinch, you'll throw whatever you have at the opposition, rules tend to be far from your mind in such a situation. It's part of the reason it's a serious no-no to bring your own ammunition to the fight. Even the military lawyers get it wrong sometimes, there was quite a ruckus caused when one who couldn't tell the difference between open-tipped ammunition and hollow-point ammunition ordered that the M118 rifle round be recalled and withdrawn from issue in Iraq. Took a few weeks to sort that one out.

NTM

Ann22

starbelgrade wrote: »

Too Long; Died Reading.

:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D Funny b*stard:D