![]() |
What gets me is the math:
450 dead and 1000 injured Iraqis for 4 dead security contractors. Thats 112.5 dead and 250 injured Iraqis for each of the security contractors that were killed and corpes mutiliated. How shameful. All that death and misery. Also, it is quite chilling how members of the governing council are speaking out against us. Link Iraqi allies warn US over Falluja Reports from Falluja say food and medical supplies are low Members of Iraq's US-appointed governing council have condemned the US military operation in Falluja after four days of bitter fighting. One member described the operation as "genocide" after doctors in the Sunni Muslim city of 300,000 reported 450 deaths and 1,000 injured this week. The fugitive leader of the country's parallel Shia unrest has demanded the withdrawal of troops from Iraq. The US has declared a truce in Falluja but fighting continued as night fell. Gunfire and mortar blasts echoed across the city west of Baghdad and a marine officer who spoke to AFP news agency on condition of anonymity predicted it would "get worse before it gets better". Another officer, Maj Pete Farnum, said his men had tried to keep the noon (0800 GMT) truce on Friday but attacks by militants had not eased. "We went into pause but the enemy kept attacking us on the western side of the city," he said. "We had to defend ourselves so we asked for permission to return to offensive operation. This was granted." However, the ferocity of the battle for the city appeared to have eased since the US administrator in Iraq, Paul Bremer, announced the 24-hour truce to allow for peace talks. US troops are said to be allowing women and children to leave the city but are stopping men as they search for suspects in the killing and horrific mutilation of four American security guards in Falluja at the end of March. Coalition lashed Ghazi Ajil al-Yawer, a Sunni Muslim member of the Iraqi Governing Council (IGC), said he was ready to resign if the US did not seek a peaceful solution to the crisis in Falluja. "How can a superpower like the US put itself in a state of war with a small city like Falluja? This is genocide," he told AFP news agency on Friday, the first anniversary of the fall of Saddam Hussein. Fellow IGC member Adnan Pachachi said the Falluja offensive was "illegal and totally unacceptable" whilst Kurdish IGC member Mahmoud Uthman described US policy as counter-productive. The Iraqi interim Human Rights Minister, Abdel Basit Turki, and a member of the Iraqi Governing Council's rotating presidency, Iyad Allawi, both resigned on Friday without giving a reason for their decision. Moqtada Sadr, the radical cleric whose followers have been directing violent unrest in Shia areas since Sunday, has demanded the withdrawal of coalition troops from Iraq. Speaking in a sermon read out at Friday Prayers by an aide in the town of Kufa, he said US President George W Bush could no longer point to Saddam Hussein or weapons of mass destruction as reasons to be in Iraq. "You are now fighting an entire nation, from south to north, from east to west, and we advise you to withdraw from Iraq," said Mr Sadr, who is the subject of a coalition arrest warrant. 'Serious' threat President Bush has been consulting other coalition leaders by telephone, speaking to Italian Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi, Polish President Aleksander Kwasniewski and El Salvadoran President Francisco Flores. A senior US commander, Brigadier General Mark Kimmitt, said in Baghdad that operations to quell Shia unrest were going well. UK Foreign Secretary Jack Straw has said the coalition is facing its "most serious" threat since the end of the war. The US has reported the deaths of at least 42 of its soldiers in combat since Sunday and militants are holding a number of foreign nationals hostage, including three Japanese citizens, two Palestinians and a Canadian. Russia has called on the sides in Iraq to show restraint and warned of "an impending humanitarian disaster" in Falluja. |
Russia has no right to judge whatever takes place overthere. They're doing exactly the same thing in Chechnia.
|
What alarms me Chewie is that you're doing math as if there is a formula.
[ 04-09-2004, 09:49 PM: Message edited by: Ronn_Bman ] |
Quote:
|
Just what I said. You felt the need to break it down. 4 dead contractor = x amount of dead Iraqis.
All that death and misery IS shameful, but what does math have to do with it? "450 dead and 1000 injured Iraqis FOR 4 dead security contractors" like there is might be an acceptable number? What's worse is that sounds like "it's ONLY 4 dead security contractors, so we have to kill thousands of Iraqis". I know, just another adhom/strawman. That's all I've got, right? [ 04-09-2004, 10:14 PM: Message edited by: Ronn_Bman ] |
Quote:
You see, there is no formula or acceptable number. The math bit is just a perspective that frames the moral dilemna involved in taking lives in response to lives taken. I personally find it quite the even more shocking and shameful that so many Iraqis have been killed in response to so few Americans being killed. You may not see it this way, and its your right not to as far as I am concerned. |
<font color=orange>If it was only four, I might think you had a point, but many more lives have been taken in the triangle. The Four Blackwater deaths were just the straw that broke the camels back. What I can't understand is why we went in with such underwealming force. There should have been many more soldiers/marines going in. The fighting could have been over by now. For that matter there may not have been any fighting if the force had been large enough.</font>
[ 04-09-2004, 10:58 PM: Message edited by: Sir Taliesin ] |
Quote:
late edit for spelling (know does not equal now) [img]tongue.gif[/img] [ 04-10-2004, 03:54 AM: Message edited by: Chewbacca ] |
Cheers to Sir T pointing out the total number lost. (Yeah, I know this will garner some "totals" post by Skunk or other terrorist sympathizers -- so be it.)
Quote:
[ 04-10-2004, 03:27 AM: Message edited by: Timber Loftis ] |
Quote:
|
Can we knock off the terrorist sympathizer crap already?
Mark |
Quote:
While there is definately some merit in pointing out that insurgents have been killing US troops in the region, it is worth pointing out that most of the townspeople had not been a part of that action. Indeed, according to the administration it was the work of a small minority and 'foreign fighters' - so unless the administration was lying, a good proportion of those who are dying as a result of the air-strikes had nothing to do with the insurgency - nor with the deaths of the us citizens last week. Certainly, according to the pictures coming out of Falluja (every bit as horrifying as the pictures of the previous week), at least some of those killed couldn't possibley have been a part of the militia: http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exer...A425192815.htm (<u>Warning: these images are not suitable for children</u>). But those are pictures that you won't see on western TV because we don't want to know when we perform barbaric acts - that's something that only the other side is capable of... But no, in the end it isn't a maths game. One death of one innocent person is one too many. Time to call an end to the pacification process as it doesn't seem to have provided a pacific situation for either the region or the country. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
It's when I see images like that that I can garner a better understanding as to the pure, savage hatred in the mindsets of the Fallujah 'mutilators'. |
"How can a superpower like the US put itself in a state of war with a small city like Falluja? This is genocide," he told AFP news agency on Friday, the first anniversary of the fall of Saddam Hussein.
How can a Superpower alow this to stand? If they do they cease to be a superpower! That was the Mistake in Sommalia, cut'n run'n because people were killed. As a child growing up during the Veitnam war 12 U.S. Marines killed in one day would have been called LIGHT casulaties for that day. |
Quote:
"Shia protesters, led by Mr Sadr's aide Sheikh Abdel al-Satar al-Bahadli brandishing a sword, occupied the roof of the governor's office at dawn on Monday. BBC correspondent Dumeetha Luthra said they were chanting "no to America, we'll sacrifice ourselves to Sadr" and waving pictures of their leader. And how did the British react to this challenge to their authority? In Basra, the British said: "Fine. You want to demonstrate and occupy buildings - no problem with us. Go right ahead, and we'll talk about it". Two days later, the sieges ended with scarcely a shot fired in anger, leaving the British commander to remark smugly: "One of the things we're trying to do here is encourage freedom of expression, and if they can come together and do it in that fashion then I think that's a very positive result." <font size="1">BBC News</font> I agree that the US needs to resolve the Falluja problem or retreat from Iraq altogether. However, "overwhelming force" is not always an appropriate response - least of all in a densely populated zone. The risk with this strategy is gaining control of Falluja at the expense of losing control of the rest of the country. A year of hard work convincing Iraqi's of good intentions is being unravelled - and whatever trust that ordinary Iraqis have given the coalition might be lost forever if the carnage continues. [ 04-10-2004, 11:49 AM: Message edited by: Skunk ] |
Quote:
|
Quote:
"Shia protesters, led by Mr Sadr's aide Sheikh Abdel al-Satar al-Bahadli brandishing a sword, occupied the roof of the governor's office at dawn on Monday. BBC correspondent Dumeetha Luthra said they were chanting "no to America, we'll sacrifice ourselves to Sadr" and waving pictures of their leader. And how did the British react to this challenge to their authority? In Basra, the British said: "Fine. You want to demonstrate and occupy buildings - no problem with us. Go right ahead, and we'll talk about it". Two days later, the sieges ended with scarcely a shot fired in anger, leaving the British commander to remark smugly: "One of the things we're trying to do here is encourage freedom of expression, and if they can come together and do it in that fashion then I think that's a very positive result." <font size="1">BBC News</font> I agree that the US needs to resolve the Falluja problem or retreat from Iraq altogether. However, "overwhelming force" is not always an appropriate response - least of all in a densely populated zone. The risk with this strategy is gaining control of Falluja at the expense of losing control of the rest of the country. A year of hard work convincing Iraqi's of good intentions is being unravelled - and whatever trust that ordinary Iraqis have given the coalition might be lost forever if the carnage continues. </font>[/QUOTE]I'm glad to see the situation was resolved in the manner it was. But, I believe there is more then a little difference between a man branishing a Sword, a weapon that requires up close and personal contact for it to be anything more then to be considered a dectoration to a solider armed with an automatic weapon capitable of killing at distance. Occupping a building is differant then killing people, to a degree that far exceded what would or could be considered a Little. If there is any doubt on that point, I'll make a deal with anybody on the board, I'll not occupy any buildings if they quit breathing ;) |
It's terrible when any human is killed in war, "Hale" that's what war is designed for, NO OTHER PURPOSE then to kill fellow humans. Blowing Up stuff and breaking things is gravy.
Now trying to equate innoicents being killed in combat, as bystanders/colateral damage/civilains not intentionally targeted with the INTENTIONAL TARGETING of civilains is foolish at best and DAMN ASSININE at worst. As for the policy currently being used, it may or may not work, we shall have to see. But I know that the policy proposed by many of using the U.N.'s method is equally likely to FAIL. Witness the fact the U.N. just increased it's budget for Security around the U.N. building in N.Y.C. and other locations. If their policy of dialoging/ sitting down and talking, Non confortation, sitting in a circle and communing with them that wish to do harm was so effective why are they increasing the security budget? NO need to since they are doing the right thing and talking, and EVERYBODY KNOWS talking to those that wish to do other harm will make them stop doing HARM. All we have to do is the right thing and sing KUM-BY-YAA My LORD, KUM-BY-YAA around a camp fire and the millitants will put down their weapons and come close to the fire and roast marshmellows. Beam Me up Scotty |
Pictures of innocent dead children. KUM-BY-YAA indeed! :(
Mark [EDIT] I did not like my original text. [ 04-10-2004, 05:11 PM: Message edited by: skywalker ] |
Quote:
Don't anybody try to sell me that INTENTIONALY targeting civilains to kill them, is the same as UNITENTIONALY killing civilains during combat. |
Quote:
He was the leader of the group - and, like most commanders, wasn't carrying serious personal weaponry since he didn't expect to fight himself. The men that accompanied him were armed to the teeth with the regular array of assault rifles, rpgs, grendades etc. They expected to occupy the buildings and administration centres, the British to attempt to remove them by force and a heavy battle to follow. When the British didn't do as expected, the adrelenine left and then so did they. And however you might ridicule the British approach, it DID work - without any loss of face or authority on their part - they're still in control. Of course, we are now beyond that approach and into the 'how do we get out of this mess' stage. Best option at this stage is to try to introduce the cease-fire and pull waaay back (at least 5 Km). That way they will get the time to calm down, the casualty rate drops and the country calms down. Meanwhile, if anyone in the city wants to continue fighting, they'll have to leave the cover of the city to do so - making them both easy targets and minimising the risk of civilian casualties. There are NO drawbacks to that approach. </font> [ 04-10-2004, 05:40 PM: Message edited by: Skunk ] |
As far as the British response to their insurgent problem, had there been attacks and were they being fired on? I ask because I honestly don't know. Did they ignore the insurgents while they were being attacked or did the insurgents just hold the building? Whether they were armed doesn't seem to matter as much as whether or not they were using their arms.
The response to the taking of a building should of course be handled differently than the response to a calculated ambush and murder. The pull back option seems good on the surface, but I don't believe it is without drawbacks(very few things are). Might not that approach encourage other insurgents elsewhere to believe that if they kill and fight that the coalition will leave their cities? I think that is exactly what they'd believe. What happened to the cease fire and negotiations with the clerics? |
Quote:
Perhaps letting the adrelenine die down is what you should do, I know you've been accused of be some things, but it sure as "Hale" wasn't by me. I accepted your explaination of being a devil's advocate. |
Quote:
As far as the incident in Falluja goes, the only facts known are that the ambush was carried out by four men who melted away immediately after the killing took place - according to the eye witness accounts, they DID NOT stay for the mutilations but were long gone by the time that started. Falluja has a population of 300,000 - and probably just as many guns. Finding them may be an impossible task - they may even be already dead; killed in the fighting. As far as other cities goes, each situation is unique. One size does not fit all and neither does each strategy. But Falluja is a powder keg around which even Shi'ites are uniting with the 'hated' Sunni's. NOT because Falluja is against the US, but rather at the civilian deaths caused by attempt to retake the town. To get the rest of the country back on side, there HAS to be a calming down period. And it is not to say that the US should sit on their hands during the lull. It goes without saying that this would be the counter-propaganda machine time, with the US offering ambulances to ferry out injured women and children, allowing food aid in, dropping leaflets re-affirming good intentions etc. etc. All the while sealing up access to the town and making sure that nothing goes in or out without them knowing about it. One thing that you have to be aware of is that there ARE television crews stuck in Falluja. I've seen the pictures coming out of Falluja - and they are pretty shocking. There are streets littered with bodies and overfilling hospitals, burnt out cars with the occupants still inside (one was filled with a family that eye-witnesses said were killed by a US helicopter fired a missile at it), another where the occupant was apparently burnt alive, women and children running and screaming away from explosions....And these pictures are going out not only all over Iraq via sattelite - but also all over the middle-east. Hence the reason why mosques all over Iraq are calling people to donate food and blood to the 'victims' of Falluja. That's powerful and shocking imagery - and the coalition needs to reverse it pretty dam quick or they'll lose every gain they've made to date. As far as the cease fire goes - I don't know anything beyond the fact that both sides have agreed to a 12 hour truce beginning at 6.00 am Sunday, to open negociations. The US has stated that it wants the insurgents to use that time to gather up those responsible for both the deaths and mutilations last week - my feeling is that the best that they can expect is have some bodies handed over with the claim that they were the ones, or some poor foreigners/undesirables who they've decided can take the fall. (Cynic that I am) I know that the IGC are currently talking to Sadr - on the table is a promise not to pursue the 'murder charge' and to improve the lot of poorer Shi'ites in return to peaceful cohabitation and an end to the insurrection. However, Sadr has stated that he will not agree to anything before Falluja is resolved - he obviously wants to garner support out that and use it to guarantee his safety afterwards. So again, we're not likely to see anything there until that Falluja starts smelling of roses. [ 04-10-2004, 08:39 PM: Message edited by: Skunk ] |
They now have taken an American hostage that they threaten to kill unless the US withdraws from the city. It seems like that is something that would take as a victory after all, so there was a drawback.
Japan couldn't afford cave to the threat of burning their citizens alive, in fact you said no government could, so can the US pull back now? |
Quote:
Oh yes, for sure images of hostage taking will horrify western, audiences - especially as the pictures of the events inside Falluja are not being aired there. But they are not trying to get western support - they want the support of Iraqis and the wider middle-east. And those people have seen the images. And in the same way that we bill every inmate of GM bay as a terrorist and therefore not worthy of the justice system or rights, they will bill the hostages as 'mercenaries' who should therefore not be worthy of rights. (Mercenaries are a particularly bad word in the ME, having been responsible for much of the worst attrocities throughout their history). It's the same tactic that Saddam hoped for during the Iraq war. The cities bombed, hundreds/thousands of dead civilians and US soldiers drawn into urban warfare where they are more vunerable. A tactical withdrawl is not a defeat. In so doing, the US would take control of a situation that they no longer have control of. It's a matter of perspectives. They would still be in control of all traffic entering and leaving the city. They would still control almost every important aspect of what goes on in the city, when the power goes on or off, when the water is switched on or off, how much or how little food goes in - and more importantly what images leave the city. As Winston Churchill put it: "Battles are won by slaughter and manoeuvre. The greater the general, the more he contributes in manoeuvre, the less he demands in slaughter." and, "There are many kinds of manoeuvres in war, some only of which take place upon the battlefield. There are manoeuvres far to the flank or rear. There are manoeuvres in time, in diplomacy, in mechanics, in psychology; all of which are removed from the battlefield, but react often decisively upon it, and the object of all is to find easier ways, other than sheer slaughter, of achieving the main purpose." [ 04-11-2004, 06:20 AM: Message edited by: Skunk ] |
Quote:
|
It seems from the news story in the other thread that a pull back is part of the cease fire agreement, and while it should work in the immediate sense, I hope it doesn't inspire others to action hoping for the same result.
|
Quote:
I think they believe they can win the propaganda war and force us to withdraw thereby winning the battle, and not just the battle in this city, but the greater battle for Iraq. After all, the insurgents aren't just fighting for the coalition to leave Fallujah, they are fighting for the coalition to leave all of Iraq. Just as you've said, not all battles are won through might, some are won through maneuver. That IS true, and it works both ways. Iraq is already the place foreign jihadists go to get their shot (literally) at the US, and every victory for insurgents will just inspire more. We agree, they don't care if they kill innocents who are only trying to help their own people, in fact those are the ones they prefer to take hostage and call mercenaries, and when their own people are killed because of their insurgency, they can blame the coalition. In fact, the only drawback to their position is that they may be killed by the coalition, so it doesn't seem unreasonable to me that we make that drawback one that is 'all too real' to ignore. It seems to me the insurgents and their politics are given too much consideration. EDIT - Added a few more thoughts since the weekends here are slow, and since no one has yet responded. [ 04-11-2004, 08:52 PM: Message edited by: Ronn_Bman ] |
Case in Point :(
Iraq Red Crescent chief and wife murdered The director of the Iraqi Red Crescent in the Kurdish city of Irbil and his wife have been murdered. The bodies of Barzan Umar Ahmad and his wife Sazane Ismail Abd Allah, who also works at the Red Crescent, were discovered late on Friday on a street in the Hay al-Intisar district in the northern city of Mosul, said Red Crescent official Hawar Faris on Saturday. Their car appeared to have come under heavy gunfire. |
Well that last incident happened in Kurdistan, and a red crescent official is not a likely target for either side. My feeling is that this is the result of a simple bandit attack - not a political one. And no group has taken responsibility for it either.
As for the siege well, for whatever reasons, the US has instigated a ceasefire and it *is* calming the situation, not only in Falluja but also in the rest of the country. Time will tell as to whether this strategy was correct. |
Isn't Mosul in Iraq?
Regardless, results *are* what matters in Falujah, so I'll be happy to be proven overly pessimistic. [img]smile.gif[/img] [ 04-12-2004, 02:47 PM: Message edited by: Ronn_Bman ] |
Quote:
So I also hope that I'm being overly pessimistic too and that this all works out. |
Despite a bit of heat between those of us here now and then, I know that's true for everyone. :D
[ 04-12-2004, 05:56 PM: Message edited by: Ronn_Bman ] |
No leader could allow people to get away with murder in an election year.
|
All times are GMT -4. The time now is 02:07 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.3
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
©2024 Ironworks Gaming & ©2024 The Great Escape Studios TM - All Rights Reserved