I can't really make the point because I can't show you the footage of the scenes from the 'active combat' stage of the siege. The footage was *gruesome* to the extreme - if you had seen it, it would have affected you no less than those mutilation scenes in the same town. The same knot in the stomach, the same shock and horror. And those soldiers will almost certainly have seen that footage, broadcast live from 3 different arab news channels in Falluja.

And johnny, I was in the British army in Northern Ireland, and I assure you that we NEVER used airstrikes and artillery against rioters. And we would NEVER use rockets or any heavy munitions in a built up area even if we were under mortar attack and heavy machine gun fire. There *IS* a difference.
There are rules of engagement - and they're even more strict when dealing with your OWN populace.

I don't think that many soldiers in the British army would obey an order to use such force on their own countrymen either.

I guess that I'm just going to have remain in disagreement with you guys over this. I think that the new Iraq army is a success and that the US army has done a good job vetting and training them. Short of the insurgents turning their guns on the citizens of Falluja and the Iraqi army still refusing to engage, not much is going to change my mind.

Anyways, it's NICE to praise the US for a success in Iraq for a change [img]smile.gif[/img] - you're not going to spoil it for me.

They don't ? Remember this ?

Hey, at least it's their choice. Unlike before. ;) Freedom's a beautiful thing.

Glad you brought that up. The city was under siege and a MASSIVE 13 people were killed, leading to 30 years of public inquiries into why SO MANY people were killed and what went WRONG to cause such a HEAVY loss of life. And the siege of 'Free Derry' was to last another 6 months without *any* further loss of life until the army ended the siege - and even then only 2 more people were killed on the day.

In Falluja the numbers are *considerably* higher.
Now, if we term Falluja a <u>warzone</u>, the civilian toll is within 'acceptable' bounds. Those kinds of numbers are relatively small for a siege of this size and the methodology (the usage of heavy ordinance and aerial bombardment) is within the normal bounds of war. However, if it is a war-zone, then you can't ask the Iraqi troops to fight their own people.

If, on the other hand, it is a simple security operation to round up a few murderers, then the death toll shows a criminal disregard for life - and again, the troops should refuse to participate on those grounds.

Personally, I consider it a warzone and that the resultant loss of life is a regrettable but normal part of such an operation of that scale. Either way though, Iraqi troops no business participating.

[ 04-13-2004, 03:51 AM: Message edited by: Skunk ]

I GIVE UP!!!

Now they have announced that they are going to re-hire Saddam Hussein's officers to run the army! Why is the current administration hell-bent on killing any positive outcomes of the occupation???

What next, will they say that the IGC is too weak to run the country, that it needs a strong leader and that reappointing Saddam Hussein is a great idea?

How do they think the populace will react to the re-appointment of the hero's of 1993?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3621369.stm

I'd burst out laughing, if only I didn't burst into tears first... [img]graemlins/uhoh2.gif[/img]

Ain't war and politics fun!