or Connect
Cycling Forums › Forums › Other Stuff › Your Bloody Soap Box › Assault on Fallujah - Justified?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Assault on Fallujah - Justified? - Page 3

post #31 of 87

Re: Assault on Fallujah - Justified?

Going into Iraq was one of many options. But not the best.

The problem now is - what's the best way to get out for all involved?

Me thinks this is a bit more involved than, "Campy or Dura-Ace" on me new bike?
post #32 of 87

Re: Assault on Fallujah - Justified?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Carrera
There was an American military man on a BBC chat show this morning who would also agree with you. I think the older American military figures totally disagree with these present policies. In fact, what this guy said is that the U.S. is trying to fight an ideological war on terrorism by using traditional territorial strategies - thinking in terms of linking terrorists to one particular country of piece of terrain. So, he said the same as you. And John Kerry talked a lot of sense so it's a real shame people he didn't manage to get his message across (maybe he was too lacklustre).
History is there to be learned from since the Russians got it wrong in Afghanistan, America got it wrong in Vietnam and the Brits and French miscalculated in Suiz. It's not so much that Americans are dumb but I think humanity as a whole tends to be a bit dumb. As Einstein said, human stupidity is infinite.
Kind of ironic, don't you think ?
What's ironic - you say ?

The number of tranatlantic contributors here who calim some sort of military
experience - who have chosen to stay quiet about the tactics (ore more accurately, the lack of startegy) employed by the US Cannon fodder.

Zapper, Iknowbogall, White Luft, Bert/Marion, all claim to have some sort of
attachment to the USA military at one time or another.
None of these illustrious cyberwarriors have had any comment to make about the tactics employed, especially in Fallujah.
Amazes me.

I see Mr.Zarqawi has posted a message on the internet urging people to target the US forces.

So the US flattens Fallujah, yet the leader of the insurgents still has the capacity to drop messages in to cyberspace at will.
There's a pattern developing here : they went in to Afghanistan and the Taliban and Mullah Omar disappear and regroup.. They go in to Afghanistan and Osama Bin Laden disappears and regroups. They go in to Iraq and the insurgents disappear and regroup.

If I was cynical, I'd say that the USA could well want the enemy to remain -
so as to justify all this war.
But that would be cycnical.
Maybe they're just totally incompetent ?

Cynical and incompetent, perhaps ?
post #33 of 87

Re: Assault on Fallujah - Justified?

Quote:
Originally Posted by limerickman
Kind of ironic, don't you think ?
What's ironic - you say ?

The number of tranatlantic contributors here who calim some sort of military
experience - who have chosen to stay quiet about the tactics (ore more accurately, the lack of startegy) employed by the US Cannon fodder.

Zapper, Iknowbogall, White Luft, Bert/Marion, all claim to have some sort of
attachment to the USA military at one time or another.
None of these illustrious cyberwarriors have had any comment to make about the tactics employed, especially in Fallujah.
Amazes me.

I see Mr.Zarqawi has posted a message on the internet urging people to target the US forces.

So the US flattens Fallujah, yet the leader of the insurgents still has the capacity to drop messages in to cyberspace at will.
There's a pattern developing here : they went in to Afghanistan and the Taliban and Mullah Omar disappear and regroup.. They go in to Afghanistan and Osama Bin Laden disappears and regroups. They go in to Iraq and the insurgents disappear and regroup.

If I was cynical, I'd say that the USA could well want the enemy to remain -
so as to justify all this war.
But that would be cycnical.
Maybe they're just totally incompetent ?

Cynical and incompetent, perhaps ?
Ironic and unjust comments from you. You must remember when 100,000 or so abandoned their war vehicles and went home for a game of backgammon and a glass of tea. The Merkyens declared they had won the war in the cause of..................? Now they are fighting battles of systematic subversion from using old letter boxing systems. Satellites my ****, that games for idiots in the Pentagon. John Marion Wayneker is probably sat in his plastic tank in the sandpit firing his water pistol at the cat. White **** says he's to old for Maureen O' velogal, which means his circumcision went wrong. And the other two's attachments to the armed forces was probably explained by the fact that they went to Israel picking oranges for the duration.
post #34 of 87

Re: Assault on Fallujah - Justified?

I havent read all the posts here and I'd say that some of you chaps know an awful lot more about this than I do but I see it this way:

1) We should not be in Iraq in the first place
2) We are in Iraq
3) We finish what we started in a dignified, gentlemanly manner
4) If the chaps who are killing us are in Fallujah, we'd better sort it out as we per point 3) - it that means assulting the place, in we go.
5) If the reports are true today about the US Marines killing injured insurgents - shame on them. In reality however, this would have happened in all other wars by all sides. The US is just stoopid enough to let the press come with them and film it all - doh!
post #35 of 87

Re: Assault on Fallujah - Justified?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ssushi
I havent read all the posts here and I'd say that some of you chaps know an awful lot more about this than I do but I see it this way:

1) We should not be in Iraq in the first place
2) We are in Iraq
3) We finish what we started in a dignified, gentlemanly manner
4) If the chaps who are killing us are in Fallujah, we'd better sort it out as we per point 3) - it that means assulting the place, in we go.
5) If the reports are true today about the US Marines killing injured insurgents - shame on them. In reality however, this would have happened in all other wars by all sides. The US is just stoopid enough to let the press come with them and film it all - doh!
Good Gracious grow up will you. The Murkyan film crews are there to show 1) winning hearts and minds. 2) benevolent conquistadors at work 3) Winning hearts and minds. 4) kissing babies. 5) carrying a bucket of water for an old lady. 6) winning hearts and minds etc. The filming will be edited by the chief of defence staff, and distributed to all major networks to be shown at exactly the same time.
post #36 of 87

Re: Assault on Fallujah - Justified?

Quote:
Originally Posted by FredC
Good Gracious grow up will you. The Murkyan film crews are there to show 1) winning hearts and minds. 2) benevolent conquistadors at work 3) Winning hearts and minds. 4) kissing babies. 5) carrying a bucket of water for an old lady. 6) winning hearts and minds etc. The filming will be edited by the chief of defence staff, and distributed to all major networks to be shown at exactly the same time.
Soo sorry, what was I thinking...

What the US really need to do is to move onto Iran now, that way we'll all focus on the NEW news and forget all that Iraq nonsense, a bit like Afganistan...
post #37 of 87

Re: Assault on Fallujah - Justified?

The problem is that the people who surround Bush are pushing for all manner of dangerous policies, such as intervening in North Korea or attacking Iran. The danger is it could seriously backfire or even lead to a third world war.
Of course, I happen to believe the threat from terrorists is genuine - a ticking time bomb that could destabilise entire societies. It's certain that if certain terrorists groups could effectively launch a chemical or nuclear attack (either in Europe or elsewhere) they wouldn't hesitate.
The problem is Bush cried wolf in Iraq so a lot of people probably won't believe him next time the threat is for real. Plus, the threat is so complex that you need unity and co-operation to effectively combat terrorism.
I heard the other day France didn't share intelligence it had with the U.K. with respect to a terrorist plot detected in the U.K. (because of the division with America and the lack of trust over Iraq).



Quote:
Originally Posted by Ssushi
Soo sorry, what was I thinking...

What the US really need to do is to move onto Iran now, that way we'll all focus on the NEW news and forget all that Iraq nonsense, a bit like Afganistan...
post #38 of 87

Re: Assault on Fallujah - Justified?

So I'm curius what, if anything, will happen to the marine who killed the unarmed and wounded Iraqi at that mosque the other day. Even the US brass investigating this incident says it's possibly a war crime. How much time do you think this guy should or will do? Or, will it be considered too "demoralizeing" to the troops for him to be actually tried as war criminal?
Slap on the wrist? dishonourable discharge? what does everyone think?
post #39 of 87
Thread Starter 

Re: Assault on Fallujah - Justified?

Quote:
Originally Posted by pomod
Slap on the wrist? dishonourable discharge? what does everyone think?
i doubt you'll ever hear about him again...its all bull anyway, there are far more evil atrocities carried out my the US marines that either go unfilmed or are censcored before they are sent to the media.

as for it being a war crime...i thought the war was over.
post #40 of 87
Thread Starter 

Re: Assault on Fallujah - Justified?

Ia m thinking of starting a thread called: blah blah blah..and putting a poll there..

option 1: are you Merkin
option 2: are you not Merkin

then all the Merkins can vote one way and the rest of the world votes the other. Thats the way all polls in this forum end up anyway...lets cut out the filler in between...i.e. the topic
post #41 of 87

Re: Assault on Fallujah - Justified?

Quote:
Originally Posted by pomod
So I'm curius what, if anything, will happen to the marine who killed the unarmed and wounded Iraqi at that mosque the other day. Even the US brass investigating this incident says it's possibly a war crime. How much time do you think this guy should or will do? Or, will it be considered too "demoralizeing" to the troops for him to be actually tried as war criminal?
Slap on the wrist? dishonourable discharge? what does everyone think?

Just to update you on what we're being told here in Europe.
The murder of the injured Iraqi is getting widespread coverage.

There are two issues : seems that the "rebels" in that Mosque came under fire the previous day from the Marines - the following day another Marine unit
went in to the same Mosque and deliberately shot the guy.

1. The first Marine unit are guilty of leaving the scene where there are known to be injured combatants.
The rules of engagement state that where an enemy is injured, the victors are obliged to capture the injured and ensure that medical treatment is given.
By leaving them there, the first Marine unit is guilty.
2. The second Marine unit - if they shot a defenceless enemy combatant, is guilty of murder.
So there are questions to be answered on both counts by the US authorities.

Yes, we have had several spokespeople from the US army waffling on about there being a full investigation/soldier being suspended/possible booby trapped dead insurgent bodies.
In essence, just more of the same US waffle.
post #42 of 87

Re: Assault on Fallujah - Justified?

Quote:
Originally Posted by pomod
So I'm curius what, if anything, will happen to the marine who killed the unarmed and wounded Iraqi at that mosque the other day. Even the US brass investigating this incident says it's possibly a war crime. How much time do you think this guy should or will do? Or, will it be considered too "demoralizeing" to the troops for him to be actually tried as war criminal?
Slap on the wrist? dishonourable discharge? what does everyone think?
A Medal for Courage and extra round of bullets to keep on blowing off "terrorist thug's heads". "Insurgents" you say. Insurgents my ass...they're terrorist criminals!!
post #43 of 87

Re: Assault on Fallujah - Justified?

I think this was bound to be a problem when a policy of preemptive war is advocated. The reality of any war is that abuses take place. One example was the peace-keeping forces sent to Bosnia and various cases of rape coming to light. In this case, the soldiers involved weren't American but European. I'm not aware what action was finally taken at the time.
The reality of this incident is that the mosques were being used as fortresses to fire on those in range - part of the strategy of the insurgents (the idea being to tempt American soldiers to fire back and enter the mosque).
It's almost impossible to have a clean war which is why so many people oppose the idea of preemption.



Quote:
Originally Posted by limerickman
Just to update you on what we're being told here in Europe.
The murder of the injured Iraqi is getting widespread coverage.

There are two issues : seems that the "rebels" in that Mosque came under fire the previous day from the Marines - the following day another Marine unit
went in to the same Mosque and deliberately shot the guy.

1. The first Marine unit are guilty of leaving the scene where there are known to be injured combatants.
The rules of engagement state that where an enemy is injured, the victors are obliged to capture the injured and ensure that medical treatment is given.
By leaving them there, the first Marine unit is guilty.
2. The second Marine unit - if they shot a defenceless enemy combatant, is guilty of murder.
So there are questions to be answered on both counts by the US authorities.

Yes, we have had several spokespeople from the US army waffling on about there being a full investigation/soldier being suspended/possible booby trapped dead insurgent bodies.
In essence, just more of the same US waffle.
post #44 of 87

Re: Assault on Fallujah - Justified?

Quote:
Originally Posted by limerickman
Just to update you on what we're being told here in Europe.
The murder of the injured Iraqi is getting widespread coverage.

There are two issues : seems that the "rebels" in that Mosque came under fire the previous day from the Marines - the following day another Marine unit
went in to the same Mosque and deliberately shot the guy.

1. The first Marine unit are guilty of leaving the scene where there are known to be injured combatants.
The rules of engagement state that where an enemy is injured, the victors are obliged to capture the injured and ensure that medical treatment is given.
By leaving them there, the first Marine unit is guilty.
2. The second Marine unit - if they shot a defenceless enemy combatant, is guilty of murder.
So there are questions to be answered on both counts by the US authorities.

Yes, we have had several spokespeople from the US army waffling on about there being a full investigation/soldier being suspended/possible booby trapped dead insurgent bodies.
In essence, just more of the same US waffle.
This is all ****e...First off, I think we need to send in "embedded reporters" to check all insurgents that are either thought to be dead or holding a white flag in surrender or hiding behind children when firing their weapons before we send in our troops. Wouldn't be long before there would be no more "embedded reporters"

#2 The guy in question who shot, had seen his buddy blown away by an insurgent who was faking injury and surrender a day earlier.

#3 Everytime they show this nbc video, I demand equal coverage and have them show beheadings of innocent civilians, or perhaps lim, they should show the murder of CARE head Margaret Hassan which shows what kind of animals we are dealing with. I pray for her family, she did not deserve this! So, go ahead and keep defending these animals limerickman, very easy for you to pass judgement while sitting in your cozy chair and typing this ****.
post #45 of 87

Re: Assault on Fallujah - Justified?

Quote:
Originally Posted by limerickman
Just to update you on what we're being told here in Europe.
The murder of the injured Iraqi is getting widespread coverage.

There are two issues : seems that the "rebels" in that Mosque came under fire the previous day from the Marines - the following day another Marine unit
went in to the same Mosque and deliberately shot the guy.

1. The first Marine unit are guilty of leaving the scene where there are known to be injured combatants. The rules of engagement state that where an enemy is injured, the victors are obliged to capture the injured and ensure that medical treatment is given. By leaving them there, the first Marine unit is guilty.
Oh and to bring you up to date, ROE or Rules of Engagement are inpreted by a JAG not limerickman or the BBC. It is your opinion that he is guilty... These guys have been faking injury or death, they had an opportunity to leave they didn't. We advertised to the world that we were going in...So, tough ****...another one bites the dust!

Quote:
2. The second Marine unit - if they shot a defenceless enemy combatant, is guilty of murder. So there are questions to be answered on both counts by the US authorities.
No questions to be answered. It's war, things happen. I would like to have some embedded reporters following the insurgents around and see how they treat their fellow human beings.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Your Bloody Soap Box
Cycling Forums › Forums › Other Stuff › Your Bloody Soap Box › Assault on Fallujah - Justified?