THE US, THE UN AND THE IRAQIS THEMSELVES, V. 7.0

Nov. 5, 2004, 12:29AM

Military hospital preparing for Fallujah battle
Marines say the toll is expected to rival those seen in Vietnam War

By TOM LASSETER
Knight Ridder Tribune News

WITH U.S. FORCES NEAR FALLUJAH, IRAQ - The number of dead and wounded from the expected battle to retake insurgent-controlled Fallujah probably will reach levels not seen since Vietnam, a senior surgeon at the Marine camp outside Fallujah said Thursday.

Navy Cmdr. Lach Noyes said the camp's hospital is preparing to handle 25 severely injured soldiers a day, not counting walking wounded and the dead.

The hospital has added two operating rooms, doubled its supplies, added a mortuary and stocked up on blood reserves. Doctors have set up a system of ambulance vehicles that will rush to the camp's gate to receive the dead and wounded so units can return to battle quickly.

The plans underscore the ferocity of the fight the U.S. military expects in Fallujah, a Sunni Muslim city about 35 miles west of Baghdad, which has been under insurgent control since April.

On Thursday, U.S. troops pounded Fallujah with airstrikes and artillery fire, softening up militants ahead of the expected assault.

Loudspeakers at Fallujah mosques blared out Quranic verses and shouts of "Allahu akbar," or "God is great," during the assault, residents said.

More:

http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/ssistory.mpl/world/2885271

0 Replies

mesquite wrote:

Step outside and take a deep breath of that fresh salt air Bill. If we cracked down on the Crips and the Bloods with air strikes and artillery, what do you think would be the reaction??

Do you think they'd stop holding the L.A.P.D. in such high regard? Shocked

Sometimes you have to choose between two evils, Mesquite. There isn't always a feel-good solution. What would you do if you were in charge?

mesquite wrote:

Can you come up with a maximum length of time that if no improvement occurs we should call it quits?

No, I can't... sorry. I'd have answered the question for Ebrown if I could. How long before we should give up fighting the gangs in South Central? I do expect we'll see improvement, btw but I wouldn't want our generals answering that question because to do so would be akin to setting the bar for the insurgents.

mesquite wrote:

At what point in time should the American people start sacrificing to support this war as with other conflicts of the past?

Yesterday. Apart from sharing the burden of the cost, I can't imagine how people are still going through gasoline like water. Was there something specific you had in mind?

0 Replies

Bill, I don't know where to go with this, except for one final angle.

You continue to speak as an American, you are sure that America is right and that a American "success" in Iraq would be a good thing, and you are confident that the Iraqis will come around and see things our way. I don't think this is realistic.

Try this. Try to put yourself in the shoes of a typical Iraqi. I am an American too, and this is a bit of a stretch, but I think I know enough to make some reasonable assumptions.

Let's for the sake of argument imagine a typical Sunni in Fallujah (which is appropriate for this discussion).

He is of the same sect as Saddam was and probably gained priviledges for this. He believe in his religion. He had a family and education and a decent life before the first Gulf war (many did).

However, he hates Saddam (many did) and to make this interesting, his cousin was killed by Saddam in Abu Graib. But, he also knew how to stay out of trouble and could earn money, care for his family, practice religion and have a decent life (even under Saddam many people did this.)

He also listens to and trusts Al Jazeera like many here listen to Fox News. Identifies as an Arab Muslim. Hates Israel and is very angry with the US for their support of Israel.

I think this describes someone similar to millions of normal people in Iraq. Now look at what happened.

In the first Gulf war, Iraq is defeated by the US. Even people who hated Saddam were angry about this humiliating defeat. (We pissed off the Shia too when we asked them to rebel and then abandoned them to death).

After the first Gulf war, Iraq is put under crippling sanctions. Our typical Iraqi now loses much of his standard of living. He has no reason not to accept his government line blaming the US.

(I actually had the opportunity to speak with an Iraqi after the first Gulf war who hated the US for this very reason, during a trip to Jordan).

After the second Gulf war, which included bombing and the deaths of thousands of his countryman, our Iraqi may have hope that the US can make things better.

But, things get worse. There is violence. There is disease. There are continuous devestating airstrikes in his city.

Then Abu Graib happens. You are shocked to here that Iraqis are being tortured and humiliated by the US occupation forces.

You also know that the US in the 80's armed and supported Saddams regime.

In addition the occupying force, who has done all of this, has appointed an "interim" government and promised "elections'.

As an Iraqi, with all you have heard -- your views of the US support of your enemy Israel, the failed promises to the Shia, the sanctions, and Abu Graib-- Why would you ever trust the US to do anything other than ensure that the results of this "eledction" come out in its favor?

Now the US and its annointed government come to your city and demand that people who oppose it give up their weapons and submit to their rule. (Don't think that the average Iraqi buys this "liberty" and "democracy" thing.)

-----

Now Bill, Honestly speaking. Would you do anything different than the Iraqis who are joining the insurgency? Would you let the US government who you hate appoint a government ? Would you trust the elections they promised to hold? (Our Iraqi will be sure that Allawi will win).

Would you hand over you weapons, or would you fight? Many people are chosing to fight, and even if you wouldn't in this situation, you should at least understand why they make this choice.

-----

You and the typical Iraqi in Fallujah think very differently. The problem is that you are so sure that you are right.

It seems to me that when typical Iraqis and typcial Americans disagree about the future of Iraq, the opinions of the Iraqis should be considered carefully.

And, to head off a fallacious argument, Allawi clearly does not represent the typical Iraqi. There are groups in Iraq that will benefit from the US propped Allawi government (ironically Allawi is an ex-Bathist and an autocrat), but their is overwhelming evidence that the typical Iraqi doesn't.

There is also the ethical argument which you as a libertarian should understand. Forcing help on a people who don't want it is offensive to them. I hate the patronizing attitude of American policy toward Iraq.

So Bill, if you can drop your American viewpoint for a second you may understand why I feel the war is both immoral and unwinnable.

0 Replies

With God on Our Side
Bob Dylan

Oh my name it is nothin'
My age it means less
The country I come from
Is called the Midwest
I's taught and brought up there
The laws to abide
And that land that I live in
Has God on its side.

Oh the history books tell it
They tell it so well
The cavalries charged
The Indians fell
The cavalries charged
The Indians died
Oh the country was young
With God on its side.

Oh the Spanish-American
War had its day
And the Civil War too
Was soon laid away
And the names of the heroes
I's made to memorize
With guns in their hands
And God on their side.

Oh the First World War, boys
It closed out its fate
The reason for fighting
I never got straight
But I learned to accept it
Accept it with pride
For you don't count the dead
When God's on your side.

When the Second World War
Came to an end
We forgave the Germans
And we were friends
Though they murdered six million
In the ovens they fried
The Germans now too
Have God on their side.

I've learned to hate Russians
All through my whole life
If another war starts
It's them we must fight
To hate them and fear them
To run and to hide
And accept it all bravely
With God on my side.

But now we got weapons
Of the chemical dust
If fire them we're forced to
Then fire them we must
One push of the button
And a shot the world wide
And you never ask questions
When God's on your side.

In a many dark hour
I've been thinkin' about this
That Jesus Christ
Was betrayed by a kiss
But I can't think for you
You'll have to decide
Whether Judas Iscariot
Had God on his side.

So now as I'm leavin'
I'm weary as Hell
The confusion I'm feelin'
Ain't no tongue can tell
The words fill my head
And fall to the floor
If God's on our side
He'll stop the next war.

0 Replies

I understand your position completely, Ebrown... and have for some time. You explain it very well and I don't disagree for lack of understanding.

There is a fundamental difference in how we assess right and wrong: You recognize popular belief. I do not.

You probably think in some societies arranged marriage is a difference of cultural. I on the other hand consider it a crime, unless the two parties want it for themselves. I don't care if it's that society's religion or it's 6,000 year old tradition if that little girl doesn't want to marry that man, it is as barbaric as slavery to force her. It matters not at all to me how many people disagree. I'm more concerned with that person's rights than that people's. That people is wrong.

Your argument against delivering democracy over a repressive theocracy is flawed for the same reason, IMHO.

Let's say all of the men and half of the women in Iraq are happy with the ultra repressive culture. But half of the women wish they had a choice to live there lives another way. That would be a 75% majority, but the other 25% are essentially unwilling slaves. I wouldn't be satisfied with that Slave/Free person ratio if it were 90/10. You feeling me? You may think I'm wrong, but you'll never change my mind. In the above equation the rights of the 10% are more important than the desire of the 90% and win or lose, the fight is just.

Had the South out numbered the North 10 to 1 in Lincoln's day the fight against slavery would be just as just. Had they lost, the fight would have been just as just.

I think Drug Enforcement should be abandoned, because it is too difficult to accomplish.
I think Human Rights Enforcement is a worthy cause, regardless of how difficult it is to accomplish.

I don't expect you to see it my way. But like you, I want you to know why I do.

0 Replies

Yes but why should the 10 percent supercede the 90? Furthermore, how do you even know there is 10 percent at all?

0 Replies

bill

Your head smells.

0 Replies

revel wrote:

Yes but why should the 10 percent supercede the 90?

Why did they in Lincoln's day?

revel wrote:

Furthermore, how do you even know there is 10 percent at all?

It was an arbitrary figure, Revel. No percent of slaves is what I find acceptable. What percent are you cool with?

That silly Blatham wrote:

bill

Your head smells.

One of the many things that makes Wisconsin Cheese the crème de la crème is it's lack of odor. :wink:

0 Replies

ok...well, somebody's head smells around here...looking back....dyslexia!

0 Replies

OCCOM BILL wrote:

revel wrote:
Yes but why should the 10 percent supercede the 90?
Why did they in Lincoln's day?

revel wrote:
Furthermore, how do you even know there is 10 percent at all?
It was an arbitrary figure, Revel. No percent of slaves is what I find acceptable. What percent are you cool with?

That silly Blatham wrote:
bill

Your head smells.
One of the many things that makes Wisconsin Cheese the crème de la crème is it's lack of odor. :wink:

Iraqis being unhappy with the US occupation is not the same as slaves wanting to be free.

0 Replies

I only wear Velveeta and it's not cheese at all. (more like tofu really) a little dab will do ya. What you might be smelling is the Napalm-Olive soap I use to keep my hands so soft.

0 Replies

...maybe it's me?

0 Replies

Bill,

You are basically arguing a "might makes right" position.

The United States gets to decide what cultures should be allowed to follow which rules because it has the biggest army. I find this a very difficult argument to defend.

There are many people who are unhappy with the fact that pregnant women kill their unborn fetuses in the United States. Many people find this utterly barbaric, and some are willing to kill to stop it.

Would a country that was militarily superior to the United States be justified to invade and occupy us because they want to stop what they see as an barbaric custom?

There are several practices I oppose that happen in my country, for example Capital Punishment. I personally find this practice to be a grave injustice, and as an American citizen I do what I can to oppose it.

However, if another country intervened militarily to stop it, as an American citizen I would object-- perhaps forcefully so.

You must agree that as Americans we have the right to work out our differences among ourselves within our own culture. Anyone outside our culture that disagrees can go to hell.

Why wouldn't Iraqis feel the same.

This myth that America is somehow morally superior and ordained by God to save the world is arrogant and unjustified.

But it doesn't matter. For the reasoned I have outlined above we probably don't have a chance in hell.

0 Replies

Squinney, hain't seen you in a coon's age. Laughing

I'm just across the Pike.

The discussion above has deteriorated into name-calling and labels like Leftist leaning and right-wing Bushies. Not useful. How is the Bear?

0 Replies

ebrown_p wrote:

Bill,

You are basically arguing a "might makes right" position.

Yep. Lucky thing the good guys got the might... though I would argue that in this case that's not completely a matter of luck. I believe the same thing on a micro level, so don't anyone try to harm a woman in my presence. :wink:

ebrown_p wrote:

The United States gets to decide what cultures should be allowed to follow which rules because it has the biggest army. I find this a very difficult argument to defend.

So do I. But I have little choice, because it's the way I see it. It is exactly our ability to help that gives us the responsibility. The burden of Might, if you will.

ebrown_p wrote:

There are many people who are unhappy with the fact that pregnant women kill their unborn fetuses in the United States. Many people find this utterly barbaric, and some are willing to kill to stop it.

Would a country that was militarily superior to the United States be justified to invade and occupy us because they want to stop what they see as an barbaric custom?

Yep. And they probably would, too, if they could.

ebrown_p wrote:

There are several practices I oppose that happen in my country, for example Capital Punishment. I personally find this practice to be a grave injustice, and as an American citizen I do what I can to oppose it.

However, if another country intervened militarily to stop it, as an American citizen I would object-- perhaps forcefully so.

I feel the same way about torture. But I don't waste a lot of time worrying about the rights of the guilty. There are enough atrocities commited against innocents to occupy my concern.

ebrown_p wrote:

You must agree that as Americans we have the right to work out our differences among ourselves within our own culture. Anyone outside our culture that disagrees can go to hell.

That's for sure, or we'll kick their collective ass.

ebrown_p wrote:

Why wouldn't Iraqis feel the same.

They can feel any way they damn well they please... but if they want to fight the jolly green giant over their right to own slaves, then I'm all for stepping on them.

ebrown_p wrote:

This myth that America is somehow morally superior and ordained by God to save the world is arrogant and unjustified.

What does God have to do with it? I don't believe in God. Why does someone need a God to recognize right from wrong? I make up my own mind. And all I ask, is for others to have the right to do the same. Here's Bill's version.

Rule#1 He who tries to force his will on another by use of force is wrong.
Exeption: It's right if you do so to enforce Rule#1 Idea

ebrown_p wrote:

But it doesn't matter. For the reasoned I have outlined above we probably don't have a chance in hell.

That, we shall have to wait and see.

I know my position seems catoonish when I answer in short strokes like I did in this post. The bottom line is: Since we have an unprecedented amount of force at our disposal I feel somewhat responsible for what goes on around us. I couldn't stand by and watch a rape take place knowing I was strong enough to stop it. Frankly, I couldn't stand by and watch a rape take place even if I weren't strong enough to stop it... I'd have to try. Did you ever see the Jodie Foster movie "The Accused"? That bar room full of people watching or turning the blind eye weren't as guilty as the attackers... but they were damn close. This is how I see the world watching Kim Jong Il and Saddam etc.. Collectively, the people turning the blind eye in that bar scene had the power to stop the horrible crime form taking place but they were too apathetic to bother. Same thing on the big stage. I don't think we're any more right because of our superior power, Ebrown. I think we're that much more responsible. Idea

0 Replies

The ideal society can be described, quite simply, as that in which no man has the power of means to coerce others, which leaves us with the thought (or not) that the power to coerce others to enforce what we decide is in their best interest is folly at best. Somewhat more than a few thousand years has proven this to be true over and over again which is why both jesus and sparticus were exectuted and not a moment too soon for societies that deemed what is best for others in spite of themselves.

0 Replies

OCCOM BILL wrote:

Sometimes you have to choose between two evils, Mesquite. There isn't always a feel-good solution. What would you do if you were in charge?

I would like to think that I would have listened to my generals from the beginning. PBS Frontline recently aired "Rumsfeld's War", which was a remarkable program IMO. It should be required viewing for all political junkies. Laughing

The full 90 min . program can be viewed online HERE. The online version is broken into six 15 min. segments.

Here is an excerpt from the program. Note that this is NOT HINDSITE. this testimony was given to congress three weeks prior to the invasion.

Quote:

Feb. 25, 2003

Shinseki goes public with doubts over troop size.

Three weeks before the invasion of Iraq is to begin, Gen. Shinseki is forced to take his internal fight with Rumsfeld public in testimony before the Senate Armed Services Committee. Responding to a question from Sen. Carl Levin (D-Mich.) about the size of the force required for an occupation of Iraq, Shinseki responds:

I would say that what's been mobilized to this point, something on the order of several hundred thousand soldiers, are probably, you know, a figure that would be required. We're talking about post-hostilities control over a piece of geography that's fairly significant with the kinds of ethnic tensions that could lead to other problems. And so, it takes significant ground force presence to maintain safe and secure environment to ensure that the people are fed, that water is distributed, all the normal responsibilities that go along with administering a situation like this.

Rumsfeld and Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz respond with public rebukes of Shinseki. Rumsfeld calls Shinseki's estimates "far from the mark," and Wolfowitz comments two days later in testimony before the House Budget Committee, "First, it is hard to conceive that it would take more forces to provide stability in a post-Saddam Iraq than it would take to conduct the war itself and to secure the surrender of Saddam's security forces and his army -- hard to imagine," he said. Wolfowitz also argues that the Kurdish northern third of Iraq had been liberated from Saddam after the Gulf War and that the area had stayed relatively stable without the presence of U.S. troops.

Source:Timeline

OCCOM BILL wrote:

mesquite wrote:
Can you come up with a maximum length of time that if no improvement occurs we should call it quits?
No, I can't... sorry. I'd have answered the question for Ebrown if I could. How long before we should give up fighting the gangs in South Central? I do expect we'll see improvement, btw but I wouldn't want our generals answering that question because to do so would be akin to setting the bar for the insurgents.

We agree here, but like ebrown_p, I fear the opportunity for positive resolution is past.

OCCOM BILL wrote:

mesquite wrote:
At what point in time should the American people start sacrificing to support this war as with other conflicts of the past?
Yesterday. Apart from sharing the burden of the cost, I can't imagine how people are still going through gasoline like water. Was there something specific you had in mind?

Roll back of the tax cuts as a minimum.

For Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz, electrical stimulation to their genital area.

0 Replies

Bill, you say that you believe in the war for Iraq because people were cruelly treated under saddam. I agree that they were. However we are not the world's police men nor can we go into every single country on God's green earth and rescue the worlds abused. moreover, we did some pretty awful things ourselves, anybody remember the prison abuse scandal anymore?

The reason we went to war was for none of those lofty ideals. We went to war because of WMD and an urgent threat to our security. Both reasons were false and there were people telling the Bush administration then that there might not be stockpiles of WMD. Also they did not plan for war but relied on faulty information from their spies that said we would be treated as heroes which turned out not to be case. Again Bush should have known better, his father even knew better as has been documented time and time again. Powell said himself that if you break it you own it which suggested that it was not going to be a walk in the rose petal park.

Now here we are, still fighting Iraqis after the war has been declared mission accomplished with no end in sight. Unless they really go through with this final thing they are talking about and no telling how many Iraqis are going to get killed and our own troops.

The war in Iraq is not worth all this killing of innocent people. Saddam Hussien could have been handled differently once we got the world's attention back on him if President Bush and his administration had not gone out of their way to be obnoxious. We were having inspections, that could have continued and then a decision could have made collectively on what the next step should be.

I know what is going to leveled next, the whole thing about the oil for food scandal. But if Saddam was willing to trade oil for food then he must have been in a pretty desperate situation and so would not be in a position to make any demands on his part. And if the world attention was on this situation then France and those other counties that allegedly traded food for oil could not make any secret deals behind the world's back. So something would have eventually been done if we carried out the process and in the meantime we would have more time to plan for a more successful war and more time to get people on our side so that we would have more troops with us.

What I had against the war from the very beginning was not that I thought Saddam was such a good guy. It was the fact that we were in a a war already that had not even finished yet, you remember the bad guys that killed 3000 people? I just thought we should finish that war first before tearing off into something else. To me it just made sense.

0 Replies

Hi, Kara.

Maybe it's me everyone is smelling?

(sniffs pits..... No. Not today.) Confused

I suppose we could argue this all day/week / month, but you guys are getting nowhere.

What I've been wondering is why we have been talking about Fallujah for ten to 14 days, now have it surrounded with 10,000 troops, roads blocked off and have been telling everyone to get out before we blow them to smithereens.

Out of a couple hundred residents, they are reporting about 6000 insurgents.

Now, if I compare that to Raleigh, I'm thinkin' if I were an insurgent there are plenty of ways to leave without using roads. Wouldn't be that difficult to dress in plain clothes and ride out with any number of the local residents leaving town. I'm sure all of the checkpoints do not have pics of the 6000 insurgents so they can be stopped as they try to leave.

So what is the result? We blow the he!! out of a large city, destroying homes, businesses and places of worship. We end up killing thousands of residents. The insurgents, meanwhile have slipped out and wait until the bombing stops to go back in OR they just move on and take over another city and wait for the troops to arrive. (perhaps a few hundred insurgents will remain behind in order to keep up the appearance of major resistance)

In this little game they play, the insurgents turn the local residents against the US troops who have destroyed everything they had.

That's my take on the current Iraq situation. I don't see the Iraqi's being thankful for our having fallen for the insurgents game and "setting them free."

0 Replies

Revel, I don't mean to ignore you but your points don't reflect any real understanding of mine. I understand you don't like the war... and I understand why.

Squinney; what do you suggest ? 125,000 people... over half of the city has already left. Clearly they don't agree with the insurgents that it's worthy of their lives. When the CRASH teams go in to arrest gang members, violence spikes there as well, but what's the alternative? Placating thugs encourages thug behavior.

Everyone seemed to be appalled at Putin's handling of the hostage situation in the theatre. I admired his grit. It is true that a lot of friendlies died that day and of course it is tragic. But not one died because of Putin's decision not to cave in to terrorist demands... they died at the hands of the terrorists themselves. Putin's behavior essentially put out the notice; "If you attack our innocent people, it is always a suicide mission". We'll never no how many Russian would-be hostage takers sh!t-can the idea as soon as it's suggested because they know their own death would be the result. Any weakness shown in the Zero-Tolerance for terrorism policy encourages terrorism. The more weakness shown, the more rational terrorism becomes.

0 Replies

THE US, THE UN AND THE IRAQIS THEMSELVES, V. 7.0

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know