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

OCCOM BILL wrote:

mesquite wrote:
OCCOM BILL,
Can you help me understand how the action going on in Fallujah works toward helping those 5 million little girls?
No, I don't think I can. Mostly because you don't want to understand it. I doubt if anyone would have been able to help you understand the incremental importance of the battle of Normandy... or Gettysburg... or any other either. But I'll give it a quick shot. :wink:

Here we are, a year and a half int an occupation and you compare the action in Fallujah to Normandy?? Perhaps you are the one that needs to turn on the lights Idea

OCCOM BILL wrote:

Prerequisite understanding:
In war, unavoidably, bad things happen to good people.
In war, unavoidably, people die.
In war, often times things get damaged or destroyed.
In war, often times civilians, of all ages, suffer, too.

These things happen in war. I think that's why they say "War is Hell." However, sometimes even worse things happen if you do not bring war. So, it's a good idea to measure how much people will suffer if you do or if you don't bring War. Not just if you do.

Yes, I understand that shiite happens, but we are no longer discussing if the war should have been started. We are now discussing tactics, and how to stop insurgents. In that light, flattening houses and destroying water supplies can only add to their numbers. You did not really believe that any of the insurgent leadership was going to stick around for the attack did you?

OCCOM BILL wrote:

In the current conflict; we will use sufficient force to bring self-representation to people who've never had it, at the cost of some ugly war goings on... or we will condemn 5 million little girls to what is essentially slavery. That's what hangs in the balance here. Will our war losses be worse than condemning those 5 million little girls? I think not.

There you go with "sufficient force" again. Let's look at our tactic.

Surround a city that contains 3,000 insurgents with 10,000 troops.
Allow time for civilians and most insurgents to leave.
Pound the city with artillery, tank fire and air attacks.
Enter the city with tank and air support and level any suspect structure.

Who do you think is drawing up this strategy, the generals or the "bring em on" civilian leadership?

OCCOM BILL wrote:

If Iraq's current averages continue; 20 years from now they will have created 11 million more little girls... (Each of them will be worth fighting for, too, btw). Meanwhile, there is little debate about what will happen in Iraq if we cut and run now. Now, I know you're worried about the growing number of civilian casualties and water towers and whatnot, but I urge you to look at the bigger picture.

I am looking at the bigger picture and I was looking at it long before the invasion, which is why I was so set against it. Short history lesson... we were attacked by fundamentalist Islam. Islamic Fundamentalism was oppressed under Saddam. Islamic fundamentalism is now taking over Iraq. If you think I am not aware if the ramifications of Islam, then check out a few of my posts.
dangerously deluded
Sharia
apostates

Oh, and if you think water towers are insignificant, try just pretending, even for a short time, that the spigots in your condo don't work and the toilets don't flush. The reason I pointed out the water tower was that it looked intentional rather than just collateral.

0 Replies

Quote:

Do you disagree? Need we carry on any further discussion into the mindset of the terrorists? They have an agenda; that is their method of achieving their goals. It is heinous and barbaric, and should be condemned in the strongest possible way by everyone.

Terrorists are evil, and I don't for a second harbor any belief that to say as much assists in understanding the mind of the terrorists. It is my opinion they are evil. That, apparently, is not an opinion, Cyclops, which you share.

I think it is dangerous to label things as 'good' or 'evil.'

I'm not arguing for complete moral relativisim; just pointing out that many of the terrorists look at Americans and say that many of US are 'evil.' So much of it is subjective.

I have no love for terrorists; those that kill people through terror deserve what they get. But in my mind, it is important to go about giving them what they deserve in a cold, impassionate way; we have to strive to elevate ourselves above the same black-and-white, simplistic views of the world which THEY employ, lest we find ourselves becoming too much like them.

I will say,

Quote:

They are kidnapping innocent people because they want the US to leave. They don't want a freely elected democracy in Iraq. They don't see that as helpful to their cause. So they think if they kill many of those that are over there in an atrocious manner - beheading them - that will shock the US, its allies, and the companies that have risked their personnel to go to Iraq to help build that country better than it was before the war. Their aim is to cause any of the above to leave. That is their goal. That is why they do the things they do.

Though I do not find your statement here to be inaccurate, you must realize that it is a pretty broad generalization based upon what you INFER their purposes are. This brings me back to my original argument; there IS reason to discuss the motives of terrorists, because people's inferrences differ, and we learn and grow in our understanding of the problem by sharing our different views on the subject.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Oh, how about we ... go back to policy discussion?

OK, I'm game. Let's restart!

What do you think now is motivating the insurgents in Iraq to do whatever they can to sabotage Iraqi elections in January?

I think they are motivated by fear.

What do you think we should do now about the insurgent's efforts to sabotage Iraqi elections in January?

I think we must kill as many of them as it takes to convince them elections are a better alternative.

0 Replies

Yay!

Quote:

What do you think now is motivating the insurgents in Iraq to do whatever they can to sabotage Iraqi elections in January?

I think they are motivated by fear.

Hmm, I'm not so sure it's fear that is motivating them. Just an unwillingness to let Democracy take hold, because they really don't want our democracy.

What the hell are they afraid of, exactly? It's not as if we've done a great job killing them or rounding them up. The insurgency is going as strong as ever. This last attack in Fallujah came up with basically nothing in the way of leadership of the insurgents/terorists. Where did they go? We don't really know. That's the part that sucks about fighting against insurgents, it's hard to pin the suckers down.

Quote:

What do you think we should do now about the insurgent's efforts to sabotage Iraqi elections in January?

I think we must kill as many of them as it takes to convince them elections are a better alternative.

We've been doing that for about a year now. Look how well it's working!

Nice to see ya back in the thread, Icann.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

Quote:

I think we must kill as many of them as it takes to convince them elections are a better alternative.

Well, I suppose that will get their attention (the ones that live I mean). If we kill say 2/3rds of them, will they be convinced to vote republican or should be keep on killing until the last man votes the party line?

0 Replies

au1929 wrote:

Bill
Maybe I missed it but is anyone advocating that we pull out at this juncture.

Yep. Most recently Revel... but in a broader sense, everyone who is complaining about the events in Fallujah. We are going push the insurgents aside for the upcoming elections, or we're not. If not, there would be little point in staying at all.

I understand the majority of the arguments I've heard against going in the first place. Craven's was far and away the most compelling (need for an international authority precedent). I don't deny anyone the right to his or her pro or con positions. But I was quite specific, repeatedly, that the context of my point was this point forward. And here, judging by your next statement, it would appear we agree.

au1929 wrote:

Certainly not I. However, the fact remains that our actions in Iraq is not endearing us to the Iraqi populace. Not even your 14 year olds.
Regarding Bush's ill conceived adventure I believe it was mistake of the first order based on bogus information. I also believe that Bush and his flunkies knew it was bogus.
I would ask again do you believe that if the Congress and the American people were told we are invading Iraq to get rid of Saddam because he was a bad guy they would have approved of this adventure? Would you?

In reverse order; Your damn right I would. Same goes for every other despotic piece of filth on planet earth. I no more believe that we can't get rid of them all than I believe the nonsense about not being able to feed the world. Of course we could. Our $10,000,000,000,000 GNP would hardly quiver. We just don't give a sh!t.

Would the American people have bought it? Absolutely. Bush did a moronic thing by overselling the war. Having pretty much hit every legitimate target in Afghanistan twice already, and still not found Bin Ladin, America would have been more than happy to remove another plague from this earth. And that's who Saddam was. His successor kids were even worse so there's no reason to believe they wouldn't have intensified the horror show given the chance. With the wounds of 9-11 still fresh in our minds, do you really doubt he could have sold it on its merits?

au1929 wrote:

Presently we are thanks to Bush between a rock and a hard place with no end in sight.
As to the Iraqi people they from the reports I have seen consider us foreign occupiers.

Presently, we are occupiers working hand in hand with their interim government to rid the country of murderer's strongholds so that they may select their own leadership in the coming elections. We are between a rock and a hard place and its true; there is no end in sight. But we're doing work that needs to be done. If we leave now, it will be worse than if we never came. However, that doesn't mean we shouldn't have come.

Back to your would America object question. Do you think the American public would object if we decided to free Cuba? How about if we had sent troops to prevent the genocide in the Sudan. We are not just driven by fear mongering you know. Righteousness mongering works too... and for good reason. I can think of 5 million good reasons to stay the course in Iraq. Idea

Ps. Yikes this thread is moving fast. I'll catch up... I'm just a little busy right now.

0 Replies

Quote:

Quote:
I think we must kill as many of them as it takes to convince them elections are a better alternative.

Dys said:
Well, I suppose that will get their attention (the ones that live I mean). If we kill say 2/3rds of them, will they be convinced to vote republican or should be keep on killing until the last man votes the party line?

hear, hear, Dys....

0 Replies

Bill wrote

Quote:

Would the American people have bought it? Absolutely.

No sense arguing about this. IMO you are dead wrong. Congress even the republican dominated one would have given a resounding no to an invasion based upon Saddam being a Baaad Boy.
Bill Wrote

Quote:

Back to your would America object question. Do you think the American public would object if we decided to free Cuba? How about if we had sent troops to prevent the genocide in the Sudan.

Completely different question and subject. However, I will bite. IMO our boycott of Cuba should have ended with the end of the cold war. We deal with other Communist nations why is Cuba an exception. Because, each political party is afraid of losing the vote of the Cubans to whom we gave santuary in Florida. IMO politicians in general are prostitutes and whores. Regarding Sudan, no I don't think they would object. However, I cannot equate the situation in Sudan where genocide is ongoing to that in Iraq prior to our invasion.

0 Replies

Would you go after the despotic pieces of filth that America supports, has supported a/o has installed in the world in pursuit of its own self-interests, Bill?

0 Replies

mesquite wrote:

OCCOM BILL wrote:
mesquite wrote:
OCCOM BILL,
Can you help me understand how the action going on in Fallujah works toward helping those 5 million little girls?
No, I don't think I can. Mostly because you don't want to understand it. I doubt if anyone would have been able to help you understand the incremental importance of the battle of Normandy... or Gettysburg... or any other either. But I'll give it a quick shot. :wink:
Here we are, a year and a half int an occupation and you compare the action in Fallujah to Normandy?? Perhaps you are the one that needs to turn on the lights

I didn't mean to imply a lack of understanding of the battles, Mesquite. My point was that your distaste for the bloodshed might cloud your recognition of the need for same.

mesquite wrote:

Yes, I understand that shiite happens, but we are no longer discussing if the war should have been started. We are now discussing tactics, and how to stop insurgents. In that light, flattening houses and destroying water supplies can only add to their numbers. You did not really believe that any of the insurgent leadership was going to stick around for the attack did you?

I would say the question is silly. Teddy Roosevelt may have been the last leader with the medal to lead his troops into battle. Believing the leaders would intentionally stay to face their execution is some serious wishful thinking.
I should note that I misunderstood your question... insofar as I didn't realize you really meant to shift to a strategy conversation. I'm no expert, but I believe it is probably very important to crush the will of would-be enemies along with enemies. I don't believe the numbers volunteering for martyrdom will prove as great as you fear. I would like to think that those in charge are well versed in military tactics. Were I commander in chief, I'd have little choice but to rely heavily on their expertise.

mesquite wrote:

OCCOM BILL wrote:
In the current conflict; we will use sufficient force to bring self-representation to people who've never had it, at the cost of some ugly war goings on... or we will condemn 5 million little girls to what is essentially slavery. That's what hangs in the balance here. Will our war losses be worse than condemning those 5 million little girls? I think not.

There you go with "sufficient force" again. Let's look at our tactic.

Surround a city that contains 3,000 insurgents with 10,000 troops.
Allow time for civilians and most insurgents to leave.
Pound the city with artillery, tank fire and air attacks.
Enter the city with tank and air support and level any suspect structure.

Who do you think is drawing up this strategy, the generals or the "bring em on" civilian leadership?

I would bet my money on the generals. Perhaps they're hoping that the civilian inconvenience it causes will make it more difficult for the insurgence to find safe haven elsewhere... and encourage more people to despise their presence. I don't know, so it would be silly to argue about it.

mesquite wrote:

OCCOM BILL wrote:
If Iraq's current averages continue; 20 years from now they will have created 11 million more little girls... (Each of them will be worth fighting for, too, btw). Meanwhile, there is little debate about what will happen in Iraq if we cut and run now. Now, I know you're worried about the growing number of civilian casualties and water towers and whatnot, but I urge you to look at the bigger picture.

I am looking at the bigger picture and I was looking at it long before the invasion, which is why I was so set against it. Short history lesson... we were attacked by fundamentalist Islam. Islamic Fundamentalism was oppressed under Saddam. Islamic fundamentalism is now taking over Iraq. If you think I am not aware if the ramifications of Islam, then check out a few of my posts.
dangerously deluded
Sharia
apostates

Very insightful posts. I got stuck reading the latter two threads. I'm now more confused about your position than ever I was... unless you are in agreement that we need to finish the job completely now that we've started and just object to the specific tactics being used. You clearly don't doubt that condemn is an appropriate word for the effect our abandonment would have.

mesquite wrote:

Oh, and if you think water towers are insignificant, try just pretending, even for a short time, that the spigots in your condo don't work and the toilets don't flush. The reason I pointed out the water tower was that it looked intentional rather than just collateral.

No need to pretend. My Condo suffered a Backup Generator failure after the second hurricane blew out the power a couple of months ago. I spent my days chasing up and down 25 flights of stairs carrying luggage for those elderly who couldn't. The place would not have been inhabitable for long which is probably why they did it. Bad things happen to good people. I assume and would hope, that the normal, peaceful majority of Iraqis will place the blame where it belongs: On the insurgents who are trying to prevent them from deciding direction for themselves. Like I said before, I haven't the knowledge to argue tactics, but would assume that seeming overreactions tend to be as discouraging to the majority as they are encouraging to a small minority. It is certainly unfortunate when innocents suffer from excess force, but the alternative is a higher percentage of the body bags being filled by American Soldiers. That's a pretty tough sell considering their the guys doing the dirty work.

Just in case I was wrong, and there is someone here ignorant of some of the more Extreme Islamic practices, Mesquite had furnished an eye-opening link here.

0 Replies

Bill
For anyone of the defenders of this administration to reflect upon.

It's steady orange for city risk

The city remained at high terror alert yesterday, despite the federal government's move to lower its threat level for high-profile financial institutions in New York, New Jersey and Washington, officials said.Homeland Security officials dropped the alert status from orange to yellow, but New York will hold steady at orange - the same since Sept. 11, 2001.

"New York City continues to be considered a terrorist target and remains at a higher threat level," NYPD spokesman Paul Browne said in a statement.

The city's targets included the New York Stock Exchange and the Citigroup Center building.

Homeland Security spokeswoman Katy Mynster said yesterday that the level was lowered to yellow "because these specific buildings and the financial services sector have had time to put in place new, permanent protective measures."
What makes the danger from a terrorist attack any less likely this week than last. I know, The election is over and there is no longer a need for Bush's constant fear mongering.

0 Replies

au1929 wrote:

Bill wrote

Quote:
Would the American people have bought it? Absolutely.

No sense arguing about this. IMO you are dead wrong. Congress even the republican dominated one would have given a resounding no to an invasion based upon Saddam being a Baaad Boy.

I agree they would not buy cartoonish vilification. However, there was ample justification without the extreme BS. I guess we just disagree.

au1929 wrote:

Bill Wrote

Quote:
Back to your would America object question. Do you think the American public would object if we decided to free Cuba? How about if we had sent troops to prevent the genocide in the Sudan.

Completely different question and subject. However, I will bite. IMO our boycott of Cuba should have ended with the end of the cold war. We deal with other Communist nations why is Cuba an exception. Because, each political party is afraid of losing the vote of the Cubans to whom we gave santuary in Florida. IMO politicians in general are prostitutes and whores. Regarding Sudan, no I don't think they would object. However, I cannot equate the situation in Sudan where genocide is ongoing to that in Iraq prior to our invasion.

We definitely agree about who most politicians are. :wink:

0 Replies

InfraBlue wrote:

Would you go after the despotic pieces of filth that America supports, has supported a/o has installed in the world in pursuit of its own self-interests, Bill?

You bet your ass I would.

0 Replies

Would you go after America for supporting a/o installing those despotic pieces of filth, Bill?

0 Replies

au1929 wrote:

Bill
For anyone of the defenders of this administration to reflect upon.

It's steady orange for city risk

The city remained at high terror alert yesterday, despite the federal government's move to lower its threat level for high-profile financial institutions in New York, New Jersey and Washington, officials said.Homeland Security officials dropped the alert status from orange to yellow, but New York will hold steady at orange - the same since Sept. 11, 2001.

"New York City continues to be considered a terrorist target and remains at a higher threat level," NYPD spokesman Paul Browne said in a statement.

The city's targets included the New York Stock Exchange and the Citigroup Center building.

Homeland Security spokeswoman Katy Mynster said yesterday that the level was lowered to yellow "because these specific buildings and the financial services sector have had time to put in place new, permanent protective measures."
What makes the danger from a terrorist attack any less likely this week than last. I know, The election is over and there is no longer a need for Bush's constant fear mongering.

I don't believe it is possible to prevent a suicide attack. I agree that the color coding is just silly. Reminders to remain vigilant are very important but I suspect they are probably in vain. But its the brand of silly that would have came about regardless of who was in the oval office.

0 Replies

InfraBlue wrote:

Would you go after America for supporting a/o installing those despotic pieces of filth, Bill?

No more than I'd commit suicide if I made a tragic error. Instead, I'd do what I could to correct it.

0 Replies

Quote:

I don't believe it is possible to prevent a suicide attack. I agree that the color coding is just silly. Reminders to remain vigilant are very important but I suspect they are probably in vain. But its the brand of silly that would have came about regardless of who was in the oval office.

I agree with that. The color-coding system has more to do with Bueracracy and CYA than it does with who is in office.

What we REALLY need is a more informative system, one that perhaps gives out less warnings, but more specific information and recommendations for what can be done on the city, law enforcement, and personal readiness levels.

It surprises me that you don't see the gov't telling people that it might be a good idea to prepare for an emergency ahead of time by having some readiness kits, or something like that...

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

I just want to know who in the world we are saving if we are killing everyone and who is going to be alive to participate in this so very important election that so many lives have to die in order to have it.

If some of the people in Fallujah use the wrong methods to fight since they don't possess any WMD like the US military that is no reason to kill so many innocent people. You can't tell me that every death is justified and the people dying and their homes being destroyed are evil people and deserve what they get. Not all of them. This is wrong.

Quote:

I called my family to see what was happening there. One of our friends living in Abu-Ghreib told us about how a US helicopters attacked their entire neighbourhood after a US patrol was attacked from that area. He said that they have holes in the ceilings of their house because of the random attack. This collective punishment is very close to how the israeli forces treat Palestinians, trying to put pressure on the civilians not to accept any fighter in their street. As if it was the civilians' duty to go after fighters and stop them.

They are using cluster bombs there. And then they talk about someone getting beaten and starved to death. Which is horrible, but come on, how can you compare?

We are killers.

0 Replies

I was responding to the link that Gelisgesti provided a few pages back in my previous post. Just thought I should explain.

0 Replies

From everything I've read, seen, and been told, anyone who says the U.S. is using cluster bombs in Fallajah either has no idea what cluster bombs are or is intentionally lieing. While I have no doubt some innocents have been killed, the vast majority of civilians have fled the city and extreme measures are being used to protect the 1/3 or so who stayed. This would show Revel's 'eye witness account' to either be completely contrary to what other eye witnesses are saying or it is highly suspect.

0 Replies

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

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know