Assault on Fallujah - Justified?

[Carrera]

Steady on, guys! Seems like a few tempers are flaring up on some of these messages - not the best way of convincing somebody else to consider another point of view (but that's politics for you).
Yes, it was tragic about that lady who was murdered in Iraq. Can't understand why any terrorist would have wanted to harm an innocent humanitarian worker. The situation in the Russian school was also horrendous where innocent children were half-starved and then shot at.
It should always be remembered, though, that those kinds of terrorists don't represent the people of Iraq who apparently respected that woman a heck of a lot.

 

[limerickman]

Steady on, guys! Seems like a few tempers are flaring up on some of these messages - not the best way of convincing somebody else to consider another point of view (but that's politics for you).
Yes, it was tragic about that lady who was murdered in Iraq. Can't understand why any terrorist would have wanted to harm an innocent humanitarian worker. The situation in the Russian school was also horrendous where innocent children were half-starved and then shot at.
It should always be remembered, though, that those kinds of terrorists don't represent the people of Iraq who apparently respected that woman a heck of a lot.

The yanks here try to equate the murder of a a woman who provided humaitarian help in Iraq for the 30 years - as justification/exoneration for the actions of US marines and they're shooting of people in a Mosque and all of the rest of what has happened in Iraq since their country invaded in 2003.

That comaprison is not only expedient - it's a ****ing insult.

There is a pattern developing here - lies about the invasion, systematic torture of prisoners in Cuba, lies about the Al Qaeda and Hussein, systematic torture of prisoners in Abu Ghuraib, shooting and killing of unarmed combatants in Mosques.
That is a pattern.

The people who murdered Margaret Hassan were wrong and are totally to blame for her murder.

The Yanks are totally to blame for lies about the invasion, systematic torture of prisoners in Cuba, lies about the Al Qaeda and Hussein, systematic torture of prisoners in Abu Ghuraib, shooting and killing of unarmed combatants in Mosques, illegal invasion of another sovereign country which posed no threat to the USA.

No relativism between the two set of crimes applies here.

If the Yanks weren't in Iraq it is 99.9% probable that Margarat Hassen, Ken Bigley etc would still be alive.

 

[FredC]

Whew, bring in the firehoses.


Some good points before we fell off the wagon of discussion. I agree that in any combat situation tensions and emotions must surely run high. And, I agree that this is surely not an isolated incident but a common abuse likely perpetrated by both sides. it's not like there are refs in striped jerseys out there whistling foul which is why we need courageous journalists to report back in someway. This particular soldier got caught this time and should serve life in prison as any other murderer. The savages who have been up to the beheadings and kidnappings should also be tracked down and tried and serve the rest of their lives in prison. However, one point that seems obvious (and I anticipated such a response -- thanks for not letting me down Zapper et al) is this notion that that the entire city is filled with "insurgents" that they are all "terrorists" and get what they deserve. blah. blah, blah,. These terms are misleading and have been misleading the US public from the get go. What the hell is a “terrorist” anyway, someone who seeks to instill fear in a population through violence for political ends? (ahem, US policy in the middle east anyone?) Or, someone who takes up arms against an invading force. It's not exactly so black and white is it. Lets not forget that this war is a sham and had nothing to do with terrorism in the first place. Going into Iraq has only exasperated the animosity towards the US and quite frankly, sorry guys you deserve what you are getting. As Colin Powell said "You broke it , you've bought it" -- probably why he's happy to be going.

Good post, I think the woman would still be doing a good job today. after all nobody threatened her in the entire 30 years, which is before Husseins regime. The culmination of her demise is down to USA intervention, which is rather odd as they financed him against Khomeni in Iran. Come on USA destroy yourselves.

 

[Induray]

You are right, Carerra - it is a dirty war and we have seen this incident.
The problem is that this type of issue is symptomatic of inept, unprofessionalism commensurate with the US involvement in the planning, invasion and the winning of hearts and minds, throughout Iraq.
It's a shambles.

Guerilla warfare is dirty - of course the Merkins haven't got a clue about any of this.
But they compound their errors continually.

Show me a "clean" war.

 

[limerickman]

Show me a "clean" war.

No war is clean.

But remind me - who declared war on who, in respect of Iraq ?

 

[Induray]

No war is clean.

But remind me - who declared war on who, in respect of Iraq ?

That is the beauty of state sponsored terrorism. With the understanding that few countries could survived a direct assault on the US or by them "declaring" war on the US, they will try to inflict damage to the US (9/11) without "declaring" war on the US. Formal war declarations and preemptive attacks by uniformed military against military installations (Pearl Harbor) are considered too risky for the rogue nations to undertake. However all wars are dirty and the only thing that counts is to win it. I'm sorry Bro...they hate us and they're out there to harm us.

 

[limerickman]

That is the beauty of state sponsored terrorism. With the understanding that few countries could survived a direct assault on the US or by them "declaring" war on the US, they will try to inflict damage to the US (9/11) without "declaring" war on the US. Formal war declarations and preemptive attacks by uniformed military against military installations (Pearl Harbor) are considered too risky for the rogue nations to undertake. However all wars are dirty and the only thing that counts is to win it. I'm sorry Bro...they hate us and they're out there to harm us.

First of all, I'm not your bro.

Secondly, when did the Iraqi's attack the USA ?

 

[Carrera]

Yes, I think if you look at the scenario logically, it's basically impossible for Iraq to meet any requirements made over the years.
Firstly, Iraq was asked to give up any WMD's it had, but assurances by the regime that it had no WMD's were denied by Bush and the neos. Then Iraq agreed to very intrusive U.N. inspections but that didn't satisfy Bush either. Then, after the invasion and the discovery there were hardly any weapons worth worrying about, the new line switched to installing democracy in Iraq. However, even if Iraq wanted a western style democracy, they are basically denied a fair election since the present prime minister is obviously a puppet. I mean, it's obvious they're never going to get a fair election that's monitored by international observers and any elected prime minister the Iraqis choose will obviously be overuled on any policies the Administration dislikes.
The whole purpose of Bush's intervention was to get his hands on the oil fields, period. In fact, Tim Sebastian recently revealed that huge percentages of profits from Iraq's oil reserves have disappeared into the treasuries of U.S. companies.

No war is clean.

But remind me - who declared war on who, in respect of Iraq ?

 

[limerickman]

Yes, I think if you look at the scenario logically, it's basically impossible for Iraq to meet any requirements made over the years.
Firstly, Iraq was asked to give up any WMD's it had, but assurances by the regime that it had no WMD's were denied by Bush and the neos. Then Iraq agreed to very intrusive U.N. inspections but that didn't satisfy Bush either. Then, after the invasion and the discovery there were hardly any weapons worth worrying about, the new line switched to installing democracy in Iraq. However, even if Iraq wanted a western style democracy, they are basically denied a fair election since the present prime minister is obviously a puppet. I mean, it's obvious they're never going to get a fair election that's monitored by international observers and any elected prime minister the Iraqis choose will obviously be overuled on any policies the Administration dislikes.
The whole purpose of Bush's intervention was to get his hands on the oil fields, period. In fact, Tim Sebastian recently revealed that huge percentages of profits from Iraq's oil reserves have disappeared into the treasuries of U.S. companies.

And that's the quandry.
It's all down to oil.

On the pretext applied in Iraq - the USA could demand anything from any country and if they don't divvy up, they'll invade them.
Iraq was asked to give up something it never had : so it's a lose/lose scenario.

Europe needs to disengage with the USA, and go it's own way.
It's intolerable that we could have anything to do with the USA, under it's current administration.
Europe needs to go the France/German route and I would hope that Bliar would wake up to this.
Hungarian parliament has said that they're bringing their troops home before
31st December 2004.

In time the USA will lose inteest in Iraq - and Allawi and co will be treated as traitors by the Iraqi's.

Oil is what this is all about.

 

[FredC]

And that's the quandry.
It's all down to oil.

On the pretext applied in Iraq - the USA could demand anything from any country and if they don't divvy up, they'll invade them.
Iraq was asked to give up something it never had : so it's a lose/lose scenario.

Europe needs to disengage with the USA, and go it's own way.
It's intolerable that we could have anything to do with the USA, under it's current administration.
Europe needs to go the France/German route and I would hope that Bliar would wake up to this.
Hungarian parliament has said that they're bringing their troops home before
31st December 2004.

In time the USA will lose inteest in Iraq - and Allawi and co will be treated as traitors by the Iraqi's.

Oil is what this is all about.

Just listenened to IRN. The MrsErkins are stretched beyond their capabilities in both resolutions and dialogue. Lost, Lost, Lost, in the wilderness of ignorance. Come on home Europe. There's Strong Ale and Cake for tea.

 

[Weisse Luft]

The Europeon objection to US involvement in Iraq is just about defense. Defense over the corruption of the UN OFF program. When the chips settle, there will be hell to pay for the complicity of certain countries in this scandel.

 

[FredC]

The Europeon objection to US involvement in Iraq is just about defense. Defense over the corruption of the UN OFF program. When the chips settle, there will be hell to pay for the complicity of certain countries in this scandel.

Hey listen Shofah blower, no country in Europe bothered about SH's WMD, because he didn't have any. The Merkians invented the whole scenario. Hell to play???. No shmuck we have diplomatic political accords which will always work.

 

[davidmc]

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.

Priceless post. Here's an alternative strategy. Remove all troops, give a reasonable amt. of time for all innocent's to evacuate then nuke 'em till the ground turns to glass. Then, there's more, carve out a portion of the remainder & give it to the palestinians as a gift. Neutron bomb's would have to be used, in that case, so the land would be able to be used again & not be a sheet of glass; in a reasonable period of time. I don't see the indigenous insurgent's reasoning. We tell them A) we'll depose a ruthless dictator & then, B) we'll turn the country over to you to rule yourselves & you can have a stake in the prosperity of your resources. But no, it all comes down to christian vs. muslim, no? No rationality involved. I can see them not wanting American pop-culture, i can't stand it myself, it's soul-eating but democracy? Are they saying they're not ready/wanting to determine their own destiny?

 

[davidmc]

Heard of this book? :
LOSING THE WAR....An anonymous intelligence officer released a book saying that Bush is losing the war on terror:

Imperial Hubris is the latest in a relentless stream of books attacking the administration in election year. Most of the earlier ones, however, were written by embittered former officials. This one is unprecedented in being the work of a serving official with nearly 20 years experience in counter-terrorism who is still part of the intelligence establishment.

The fact that he has been allowed to publish, albeit anonymously and without naming which agency he works for, may reflect the increasing frustration of senior intelligence officials at the course the administration has taken.

This is the second book written by this guy, but apparently he takes his criticism of Bush far beyond anything he's published before. Among other things, Anonymous say that (a) we probably aren't close to capturing bin Laden, (b) Bush and Tommy Franks screwed up big time by not going after him with massive firepower at Tora Bora in 2002, and (c) al-Qaeda is probably stronger than ever right now. And then there's this:

Anonymous, who published an analysis of al-Qaida last year called Through Our Enemies' Eyes, thinks it quite possible that another devastating strike against the US could come during the election campaign, not with the intention of changing the administration, as was the case in the Madrid bombing, but of keeping the same one in place.

"I'm very sure they can't have a better administration for them than the one they have now," he said.

"One way to keep the Republicans in power is to mount an attack that would rally the country around the president."
We are, the author notes, losing the war on terror. Hawks will squirm as the author heaps contempt on U.S. missions in Afghanistan (too little, too late) and Iraq ("a sham causing more instability than it prevents"),

 

[Weisse Luft]

Hey listen Shofah blower, no country in Europe bothered about SH's WMD, because he didn't have any. The Merkians invented the whole scenario. Hell to play???. No shmuck we have diplomatic political accords which will always work.

Always work? Like Chamberlin? Why do Europeons forget history? The diplomatic political accords didn't work for 12 years because the bottom line was profit for select Europeon countries, Russia and many Asian countries.

The accords, without enforcement, are worth less than the paper they were written on.

 

[Saucy]

Heard of this book? :
LOSING THE WAR....An anonymous intelligence officer released a book saying that Bush is losing the war on terror:

Imperial Hubris is the latest in a relentless stream of books attacking the administration in election year. Most of the earlier ones, however, were written by embittered former officials. This one is unprecedented in being the work of a serving official with nearly 20 years experience in counter-terrorism who is still part of the intelligence establishment.

He is no longer anonymous. He was interviewed on 60 Minutes last week and retired before he came forward. These kinds of leaks are the reason the administration is now cleaning house at the CIA. Its pretty clear that there are many in the CIA/intelligence community who believe that this administration is not only duplicitous but downright incompetent. Those who have been critical are all getting their asses fired now.

 

[Weisse Luft]

He is no longer anonymous. He was interviewed on 60 Minutes last week and retired before he came forward. These kinds of leaks are the reason the administration is now cleaning house at the CIA. Its pretty clear that there are many in the CIA/intelligence community who believe that this administration is not only duplicitous but downright incompetent. Those who have been critical are all getting their asses fired now.

Not quite so fast. The CIA had long been regarded as the "silent service" because one did not ever go public on such matters. After 8 years of the Clinton Administration, politics entered the CIA and polluted its mission. It wasn't the rank and file, it was directors which usually change with administrations. Usually because in 2001, very few changes were made. Tenet had been director for SEVEN years.

 

[davidmc]

Not quite so fast. The CIA had long been regarded as the "silent service" because one did not ever go public on such matters. After 8 years of the Clinton Administration, politics entered the CIA and polluted its mission. It wasn't the rank and file, it was directors which usually change with administrations. Usually because in 2001, very few changes were made. Tenet had been director for SEVEN years.

After General Clark's book, we all know that the Bush wanted people (Clark) to "go fishing" for certain fact's, don't we? Clark said that Bush wanted him to find info. on Iraq, not the terrorist's, immediately following 9-11. General Clark was dismayed at this contradictory order as would anyone be w/ a modicum of intelligence. That's handpicking info. from the CIA for self-serving, political ends. Makes me sick. Are you going to denigrate General Clark, now, for speaking the truth As we all know, Bush made the famous statement, "He tried to kill my daddy", when his other arguments, for going to war, were not producing the desired result's. Censure on the senate floor, at a minimum; or impeachment would be the appropriate punishment for using the U.S. military for personal reason's. Maybe criminal prosecution, after his removal from office, whatever the law call's for

 

[limerickman]

The Europeon objection to US involvement in Iraq is just about defense. Defense over the corruption of the UN OFF program. When the chips settle, there will be hell to pay for the complicity of certain countries in this scandel.

The only ones that have ever been complicit in undermining everything - for the sake of profit - are your lot.

 

[Weisse Luft]

The only ones that have ever been complicit in undermining everything - for the sake of profit - are your lot.

Right. That vote of "No Confidence" byt the UN on Kofi Annan means nothing. " Don't pay attention to that man behind the curtain..."