Iraq Claims Emergency

[Dingfod]

Link (http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20041107/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraq&cid=540&ncid=716)

What does this mean, Iraq declares emergency? Martial Law? [edit] The worlds greatest military power is already all over the place 24/7, does this actually mean a damn thing? I don't think so, but, what say you?

[Socratoad]

What does it all mean? Not a hell of a lot, other than to sort of legalize that which is already going on. Things such as curfews are more easily declared, although only those already too intelligent or too to wander out into the night will actually obey such edicts.

The whole damned mess is going downhill rapidly. Although I for one am against flattening Faluja I am not sure if the situation has not spread so far out of control as to be inevitable.

We humans really do seem to be woefully inadequate when it comes to learning from history :( We always seem to think that we are only one more slaughter away from utopia.

[Dingfod]

Flattening a city of 300,000 people to get at what they say are 3000 insurgents dug in behind walls and booby-traps? Sounds like extreme overkill to me. Murder even. Certainly a violation of Geneva Conventions.

[dave_a]

Flattening a city of 300,000 people to get at what they say are 3000 insurgents dug in behind walls and booby-traps? Sounds like extreme overkill to me. Murder even. Certainly a violation of Geneva Conventions.

I didn't know the city housed 300,000 people. Given the length of time this stand off has been going on I have to question why so many people other than the insurgents would still remain there.

Moving, particularly if it means leaving everything behind, is not at all an easy thing to do, but I am thinking that if I percieved my town was going to be bombed to oblivion imminently I would probably leave anyway.

I dunno, given the course of action we have embarked upon and given that Falujah has been left in a stand off situation for some time with no results I don't see a viable alternative to a full out assault to remove the insurgents.

I don't know that a victory there will make Iraq a paradise, but I don't see how those folks can be left to continue their bombings and such if the goal is security and safe elections.

It seems like Vietnam in a way. We know where the bad guys are, but the political will doesn't exist to allow us to go after them meaning we have to deal with them on their terms. It seems like in this case the political will to take the battle to them does exist. How well it will work out remains to be seen.

[Dingfod]

A lot of people, mainly women, children and old people have left Fallujah. The Marines, which have had Fallujah surrounded since the April fiasco, are not allowing military age men, identified as 14-45 to leave without detainment. They remain for various reasons, but mainly, it's their home, the place they've lived all their lives. Would you not defend your home from attackers after you've sent your family to relative safety? They think its 3000 Insurgents, but I'm afraid that an all out assault on Fallujah may turn out 20 or 30 thousand armed people. I'm not saying that they will defeat the coalition forces, not at all, it will likely be a slaughter that could work the exact opposite of what the planners hope. I think they want to make an example of Fallujah, but what it likely will make is tens of thousands of martyrs. Martyrs that people personally know can be very much a motivating factor. It could turn what it left of Iraqi support for the US into resistance unseen since Vietnam. Plus, there's the bodybag factor. If a bunch of our guys get killed doing this, say to the tune of 1 for every 10 dead insurgents, we could be looking at a death toll between 200 and 400, even more if you count the Iraqi National Guard or whatever we told them they can call themselves. And who's to say, once in the rubble-strewn streets, under fire from the insurgents, the ING won't turn their guns on their American companions? It could turn into a big big mess, this is a high risk operation, much to lose, little to gain.

Note: The above is my analysis only (completely amateur), derived from things I've gleaned from various sources over many months of following news reports of various origin and from blogs of Iraqis themselves, though unfortunately, none from inside Fallujah, a city with no power or utilities for some time now. And, no, I won't shut up. I'm entitled to my interpretation of the same data set we all have at our disposal.

[Dingfod]

Asia Times article (http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/EI26Ak02.html) says Fallujah population before the war was closer to 500,000 and this one (http://www.theamericanmind.com/mt-test/archives/015860.html) says that 2/3rds of the 100,000 killed since the war began were in that city. Ugly situation. Fugly.

[viscousmemories]

The Marines, which have had Fallujah surrounded since the April fiasco, are not allowing military age men, identified as 14-45 to leave without detainment.
So they get to choose between their current freedom with the threat of bombing or definite imprisonment with the threat of physical, mental and religious torture.

Hmm...

[Dingfod]

Seems to me they're forcing the "men" into becoming insurgents and therein making it A-OK to slaughter them wholesale. Even Saddam wasn't foolhardy enough to do what seems to be about to happen there.

[dave_a]

A lot of people, mainly women, children and old people have left Fallujah. The Marines, which have had Fallujah surrounded since the April fiasco, are not allowing military age men, identified as 14-45 to leave without detainment. They remain for various reasons, but mainly, it's their home, the place they've lived all their lives. Would you not defend your home from attackers after you've sent your family to relative safety?

It really depends on the scenario. If I was fighting for something I cherished, yes I would (hope I would) stay and fight.

But imagine a hypothetical scenario here. The neo cons in the US grow more powerful, every Supreme Court justice is a John Ashcroft clone and there are no jobs that pay above $5/hr due to excessive corporatism. Church service attendance becomes mandatory and public education uses the bible as it's primary textbook.

The US mainland gets invaded by liberal Canadians who in a surprising display of tactical brilliance take out the Washington leadership and replace the theocrats with a more Canadian form of government. There are pockets of resistance from fundi's but one place in particular is a hot bed for the resistance.

If I just happened to live in that area would I stay and fight for the Ashcrofts of this world or would I support the invading/occupying Canadians? I would go with the Canadians, no doubt.

I don't know of any of the insurgents personally, but it is not my understanding that they are fighting for anything other than to be able to continue religious persecution against infidels and they wish for theocracy.

As awful as it may sound, I have great difficulty having sympathy for any such person who chooses to stay and fight for that nonsense. Much less for the people blowing up other people indiscriminantly or beheading civilians.

Democracy may or may not work in Iraq, I wish we weren't there in the first place, but I don't see how those remaining in Fallujah after all this time can be seen as innocent civilian bystanders. A few unfortunate people perhaps, but the majority? I don't see how that could be.

What exactly would they be fighting for? Freedom? Freedom from what and for what? For whom?

[viscousmemories]

Call it foolish optimism, but I don't believe we'll level a city that size to get at 3000 suspected insurgents. It should be easy enough to starve them out by cutting off their supply chain. I would think, anyway.

[Socratoad]

Call it foolish optimism, but I don't believe we'll level a city that size to get at 3000 suspected insurgents. It should be easy enough to starve them out by cutting off their supply chain. I would think, anyway.

The trouble with that strategy is that they most vulnerable suffer the most. Just look up the statistics of just how many Iraqi children and old people died during the sanctions. It has always been so in very many countries around this poor battered old planet..

Like I said before: We are just one more slaughter away from utopia.

[viscousmemories]

Yeah you're right, Toad. I thought of that just after I posted. :qsigh:

[Dingfod]

dantonac, not all those remaining in Fallujah have much of a choice, either remain in the city which is their life-long home or be detained indefinitely by people known to be abusers and even killers of detainees. If my two choices were that, I'd probably stay and fight.

What if, in your hypothetical scenario, you were penned up in a city with friends and relatives, and they of a different religio-political bent were the ones the unelected provisional "government" and the foreign invaders were calling insurgents and terrorists? Even if you didn't agree with their religious or geo-politcal view, what if it was your spouse or your father or your son? Would any of that change your perspective on whether to fight the invading Canadians? What if your alternative to staying and fighting was to be detained indefinitely, hogtied and hooded for hours or days, denied communication with anyone you know, denied basic human rights and possibly even tortured or even killed by viscious "private contractor" thugs and out of control invading soldiers? What if it weren't the Canadians that invaded, what if it were a Muslim coalition backed up by a Chinese contingient? Would you still be apt to cooperate with the enemies of people you know and love, despite your differences? I probably would not. What about you?

Keep in mind, family ties are more important to Iraqis culturally than they typically are to Americans. While there probably are many Americans that would be willing to die to save someone in their immediate family, many of the Iraqi people would be willing to kill or die for not just their immediate family, but their extended family, and their cause, the freedom to practice their religion as they see fit, for control of their own lives, and to repel the repulsive infidel invaders.

[dave_a]

dantonac, not all those remaining in Fallujah have much of a choice, either remain in the city which is their life-long home or be detained indefinitely by people known to be abusers and even killers of detainees. If my two choices were that, I'd probably stay and fight.

I agree, I don't know if that is what is happening in this situation though. I don't know what the policy is regarding fighting age men leaving. Detaining them could be as simple as waving women and children through and inspecting the men and their vehicles for weapons and if none found letting them go too. I don't know what is actually happening though. If the population was 500,000 and we assume half are men we would have to be indefinitely detaining 250,000 people. That seems hard to imagine simply from a logistical standpoint.

What if, in your hypothetical scenario, you were penned up in a city with friends and relatives, and they of a different religio-political bent were the ones the unelected provisional "government" and the foreign invaders were calling insurgents and terrorists? Even if you didn't agree with their religious or geo-politcal view, what if it was your spouse or your father or your son?

I don't know.

What if your alternative to staying and fighting was to be detained indefinitely, hogtied and hooded for hours or days, denied communication with anyone you know, denied basic human rights and possibly even tortured or even killed by viscious "private contractor" thugs and out of control invading soldiers?

Faced with the possibility of that versus the certainty of getting killed if I stay and get perceived as part of the resistance I *think* I would try and get out via some means other than an official exit point. Dunno for sure.

What if it weren't the Canadians that invaded, what if it were a Muslim coalition backed up by a Chinese contingient? Would you still be apt to cooperate with the enemies of people you know and love, despite your differences? I probably would not. What about you?

Then I would be faced with a christian theocracy vs a communist muslim theocracy (kind of a wierd mix). I don't think I would be interested in fighting for either side. In that case I would likely be trying to get *to* Canada or Mexico.

Keep in mind, family ties are more important to Iraqis culturally than they typically are to Americans. While there probably are many Americans that would be willing to die to save someone in their immediate family, many of the Iraqi people would be willing to kill or die for not just their immediate family, but their extended family, and their cause, the freedom to practice their religion as they see fit, for control of their own lives, and to repel the repulsive infidel invaders.

I agree that there are strong cultural differences that I can't really comprehend. I don't claim to understand the reality on the ground, I am just saying I don't understand how half a million people could still be in Fallujah at this point and be considered innocent bystanders. Some, yes, but for the most part I have to wonder why even the insurgents are staying there versus dispersing to regroup elsewhere.

They can't win the battle against the US if the political will to get the job done is behind the US troops. I assume they know Bush won re-election which translates into the political will is there.

I dunno, I can't help but impose my own perspectives based upon my cultural perspective upon a people completely foreign to me. From my perspective I can't see staying there at all unless I believe strongly in my right to impose my religious views upon others and prefer to die for that than adopt a live and let live attitude, but I do acknowledge my viewpoint is not likely the same as theirs.

Time will tell how this plays out, but I have a hard time imagining we will level the city. I rather suspect that we will cut power and move ground troops in at night (they can't see in the dark, but we can and the curfew means fewer innocents to be caught in the crossfire). As resistance is encountered I suspect the ground troops will engage in a standoff and call in the bombers or artillery and isolated areas will be leveled.

Like I said, I really don't know, this is just my perspective which could be 100% wrong.

[Dingfod]

Nice. (http://scotlandtoday.scottishtv.co.uk/content/default.asp?page=s1_1_1&newsid=5674)

Colonel Gary Brandl of the United States Marine Corps commented:
"The enemy has a face. It is Satan's. He is in Fallujah, and we are going to destroy him."And there you have it. It's a crusade against Satan and his minions. Nuff said.

[dave_a]

Nice. (http://scotlandtoday.scottishtv.co.uk/content/default.asp?page=s1_1_1&newsid=5674)

Colonel Gary Brandl of the United States Marine Corps commented:
"The enemy has a face. It is Satan's. He is in Fallujah, and we are going to destroy him."And there you have it. It's a crusade against Satan and his minions. Nuff said.

I was just coming here to post that, but you beat me to it. Gawd I get tired of this religion nonsense.

Then again it is understandable that religion is going to play a prominent role in the minds of people entering into a battle where they may well die.

Still.

[Dingfod]

I'm sure the other side in this conflict sees it the exact opposite way, that Col. Brandl is a representative of The Great Satan fight against the loyal servants of God (Allah). The only branch of the military that has as effectively brainwashed their ranks to die for their God and Country is the Marine Corps, they are the perfect opposition for people with the same, but diametrically opposed, principles.

[Ronin]

It's a crusade against Satan and his minions. Nuff said.

I think that it would be equally erroneous to assume that everyone involved is of the same view.

Pat Tillman served and died in Afghanistan as an atheist.

PS Yes, I still think that framing war in supernatural terms is goofy.

[Dingfod]

Yeah, but that is the Colonel's POV and probably many others. When those that are in charge of loyal troops take this view, that is pretty much the definitive view of their command.

[Ronin]

Yeah, but that is the Colonel's POV and probably many others. When those that are in charge of loyal troops take this view, that is pretty much the definitive view of their command.

So, when my General Orders code of ethics states...

"I will constantly strive to achieve these objectives and ideals dedicating myself before God to my chosen profession."

...I'm no longer an atheist?

Does it render my subsequent code of ethics and motivation null and void?

I also don't think that either of us can know (from this Colonel's personal statement) whether or not that is "the definitive view of their command".

[Farren]

The problem Dantonac is that often oppression creates its own monsters. In my own country popular resistance to Apartheid was often ugly, brutal and at times appeared to represent an mindset as despicable as Apartheid itself.

"Necklacing" for instance was a popular way of getting rid of suspected informants. This involved piling up a bunch of old tires round an informant then setting them alight and watching the person screaming and burning alive while the crowd danced and shrieked around them.

The problem was not only the savagery of this method but the fact that many, many people who died in this manner were wrongly accused. People I've met who lived through it recount how their friends and relatives were burnt alive because of opportunistic enemies labelling them turncoats. A favourite tactic of the security police was setting people up to look like turncoats when they wouldn't co-operate wth the police.

The rage at Apartheid also produced some particularly nasty varieties of "Black consciousness" too, as rabidly anti-white as some fundamentalist arabs are about jews. In one incident white nuns doing charity work in a black urban area were gang-raped by "comrades" and in another white churchgoers were massacred. Some members of the resistance loudly proclaimed their desire to murder and rape every white person in the country, to destroy the white race in SA and all vestiges of white culture.

Thank God reason prevailed in the ANC, which decided its cause would be human rights, not simply black liberation, but that issue actually caused a sizeable chunk of its base to split away in the late sixties to form the PAC, which for the next decade was the most effective resistance movement with the largest following in the urban townships.

With enough oppression and misery, the most civilised of societies can go stark raving mad. The resistance in Iraq has all the hallmarks of a popular resistance, not a few scattered groups of fundamentalists. Unfortunately in that part of the world the most effective organisers of resistance are often fundamentalist mullahs and ideologues. People will rally behind whoever offers them the hope of throwing off the shackles of oppression.

Were the Iraqi situation analogous to your Canadian invasion scenario the reasonable course would indeed be clear. But I don't think it is.

For one thing, the US destroyed a lot of infrastucture and dismantled useful beaurocratic structures before the rebels even got started. So from day one of the occupation Iraqi's were worse off. Then it got worse. Power outages, industries closing down (often because US troops stood idly by while factory owners begged their commanders to stop looters) and so on and so on.

Many Iraqi's felt the US had a moral obligation to fix what it broke, since, when all the self-congratulation about toppling Saddam is pushed aside, it is unarguably true that the US managed to further break an already dysfunctional society.

But the US failed to deliver. They poured reconstruction money into the country, but paid it entirely to US companies, while factory workers who'd lost their jobs and soldiers from the freshly dissolved military sat on their hands and cursed the power outages and short supply of food and medicine.

As the factional fighting increased, ordinary Iraqis felt more and more vulnerable, while seeing the occupiers and their proxies walling themselves up in military bases and massively secured urban zones, dispensing money to foreign workers to fix what had previously worked. Even worse, they were well aware of the massive amount of attention paid to the oil industry and rightly or wrongly drew less than complementary conclusions about US motives. Even before the war I saw footage of Iraqi students proclaiming with complete assurance that all the US wanted was their oil.

Despite the state their country is in Iraqi's have access to a lot of the same information we do and are fully aware of Bremer's edicts, such as the one allowing 100% foreign ownership of Iraq industries (with one or two exceptions), a law unprecedented in the modern world, Allawi's long-time CIA ties, the UN envoys public declaration of the strong arming of the ostensibly multilateral choice process that selected Allawi and stories emerging from all over Iraq of brutality in prisons (which, it should be noted, were often populated by up to 90% completely innocent individuals, by the army's own subsequent admission).

In this light it is reasonable to assume that many ordinary Iraqi's consider the US to be a foreign invader attempting to turn Iraq into a puppet state, with little or no regard for it's citizens. Even UK officers complained to British papers that US soldiers and commanders were hopelessly untrained for peacekeeping and were causing more animosity than they were solving.

A large proportion of the world's population can clearly identify the mindset of Bush's popular base. Anne Coulter expressed clearly what is either referenced in coded language or clouded by the self deception of cognitive dissonance when she said something to the effect of razing their cities and Christianizing the barbarians. Its beyond my imaginative powers to believe that a large proportion of the US military in Iraq doesn't share those views and wittingly or unwittingly treat Iraqis in a commensurate manner.

Certainly the information one sees coming from the "Street" in Iraq bears out this probability.

In light of all of these things, I submit the situation in Iraq is as far from the "Canadians save democracy" scenario you offered as is possible and that the resistance in Iraq is actually a popular resistance, not to democracy and so on, but to America, pure and simple. Unfortunately that process could easily be hijacked by anti-democratic and regressive forces, as it nearly was in South Africa, but its important to recognise it for what it is.

Personally I think the only way out is vastly more multilateralism from the US, inviting the UN to play a more active role and actually listening to what they have to say. Even Sadir has said he would make peace with a UN controlled peacekeeping force.

[Ronin]

Personally I think the only way out is vastly more multilateralism from the US, inviting the UN to play a more active role and actually listening to what they have to say. Even Sadir has said he would make peace with a UN controlled peacekeeping force.

I do think that would go along way to help as well, Farren.

That said, as can be seen in Afghanistan, the UN is not invulnerable to being victimized by the hardcore jihadists.

[Dingfod]

So, when my General Orders code of ethics states...

"I will constantly strive to achieve these objectives and ideals dedicating myself before God to my chosen profession."

...I'm no longer an atheist?

Does it render my subsequent code of ethics and motivation null and void?I dont' know, you've muddied the water. Does it mean your no longer an atheist? No. But, it does mean by following it, you've compromised your atheism, dedicating yourself before God.

I also don't think that either of us can know (from this Colonel's personal statement) whether or not that is "the definitive view of their command".Perhaps "the effective view", is what I should've written, not definitive.

That said, as can be seen in Afghanistan, the UN is not invulnerable to being victimized by the hardcore jihadists.To some, outsiders are outsiders, no matter the color of their helmets.

[viscousmemories]

Kofi Annan seems to think (http://www.cbc.ca/story/world/national/2004/11/06/fallujah041106.html) an all-out offensive at this juncture would be a bad idea.

[LadyShea]

Dantonac, where do you propose 500,000 people go exactly? It doesn't look like we arranged to provide for evacuees. Should they just wander the desert? They probably stayed because there was no place to go :: shrug

[wade-w]

The assault has begun.

[Dingfod]

Dantonac, where do you propose 500,000 people go exactly? It doesn't look like we arranged to provide for evacuees. Should they just wander the desert? They probably stayed because there was no place to go :: shrugSome went to stay with relatives in other cities. Riverbend's most recent blog entry mentioned a woman and two children from Fallujah that came to stay with them. The woman's husband and teenage son stayed behind.

[Ronin]

I dont' know, you've muddied the water. Does it mean your no longer an atheist? No. But, it does mean by following it, you've compromised your atheism, dedicating yourself before God.

Warrenly, there is no God to "dedicate myself before"...therefore, my "atheism" is still complete atheism.

There is no dogma to "compromise".

I am the guiding force of my own worldview, which includes morality and ethics, not any other.

Perhaps "the effective view", is what I should've written, not definitive.

Fair enough.

It is not the stated view of the Pentagon or the Bush administration. I suppose they are not to be believed, though, because it better suits certain predispositions.

To some, outsiders are outsiders, no matter the color of their helmets.

Well, to this secularist, jihad is no longer a spectator sport (http://thescotsman.scotsman.com/international.cfm?id=1288722004).

[Nathan Poe]

I didn't know the city housed 300,000 people. Given the length of time this stand off has been going on I have to question why so many people other than the insurgents would still remain there.

Because it's home?

Moving, particularly if it means leaving everything behind, is not at all an easy thing to do, but I am thinking that if I percieved my town was going to be bombed to oblivion imminently I would probably leave anyway.

Well, there's US occupation for you. Your town is a smoking crater, but at least it's a FREE DEMOCRATIC smoking crater!

I dunno, given the course of action we have embarked upon and given that Falujah has been left in a stand off situation for some time with no results I don't see a viable alternative to a full out assault to remove the insurgents.

IOW, Bomb them, and who knows how many innocent civilians, into oblivion.

Typical Military, we need a scalpel, we don't have a scalpel, so we use a chainsaw.

I don't know that a victory there will make Iraq a paradise, but I don't see how those folks can be left to continue their bombings and such if the goal is security and safe elections.

So we stop them bombing us by bombing them to oblivion. :doh:

It seems like Vietnam in a way. We know where the bad guys are, but the political will doesn't exist to allow us to go after them meaning we have to deal with them on their terms. It seems like in this case the political will to take the battle to them does exist. How well it will work out remains to be seen.

Except we're NOT dealing with them on their terms. We're playing the big bad "blow it up and pave it over" approach against a few insurgents.

It's the mistake we repeatedly made in Vietnam, and we're making it here. The difference, of course, being that we're making it on a FAR grander scale.

"In Vietnam we became Ho Chi Minh's greatest recruiter. A gunship would fly by a village and an enemy would shoot off a few rounds; the bird would do a 180 and retaliate by hosing down the village and killing innocent civilians. We just helped the guerrillas move that village's allegiance from Saigon to Hanoi. That was their goal, and we fell for it time and time again."
--Col. David Hackworth (ret.), "Why the Military Never Learns."

Deja Vu, anyone?

[Ronin]

Quote of the day:

""We had to fire warning shots and we could indeed have wounded or killed a few people," he said.

"We at all times made every effort to limit to a minimum the risks both for the civilian population and for any adversaries we came across."

I'll drink a shot of vodka to the first person who identifies the person who recently made that statement.

:tiphat2:

[Ronin]

Oh, alright, I'll answer it:

General Bentegeat, French Joint Chiefs of Staff, said that very thing just yesterday after "French interests" were attacked on the Ivory Coast.

<takes shot>

France sucked into Ivory Coast conflict (http://www.turkishpress.com/news.asp?id=33094)

from the article ~

"The intervention provoked a stark warning from the speaker of the Ivorian parliament Mamadou Coulibaly, a Gbagbo loyalist, who said France faced a "long, hard war" and that French nationals risked death at the hands of the "patriot" mob.

"Vietnam will be nothing compared with what we are going to do here," he said. "The Ivorian authorities consider themselves now to be rebels against the French power which Jacques Chirac is trying to install. There will be fierce resistance."

Is there a "Godwin" for Vietnamage?

UN demands cease-fire in Ivory Coast, backs France (http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/articleshow/msid-915164,curpg-2.cms)

from the article ~

The statement, drafted by France, confirmed that French and UN peacekeepers in Ivory Coast were authorised to use “all necessary means” to carry out their duties.

It also confirmed that UN peacekeepers could act to prevent any violence in the buffer zone, known as the Zone of Confidence, separating Ivory Coast’s rebel-held north and government-controlled south.

Some 10,000 French and UN soldiers police the zone.

I don't think that the terms of conflict are as simplistic as we would like to believe they are on this earth.

[LadyShea]

Thanks for info Ronin. Doesn't matter where one looks, The Middle East, Eastern Europe, Africa....seems people are fighting for power, often simply power of their own desitinies. Sad

Is there a "Godwin" for Vietnamage?

No but we need one I think.

[Zoot]

I assume we've all seen this simulation?

http://www.newsgaming.com/games/index12.htm

[dave_a]

Dantonac, where do you propose 500,000 people go exactly? It doesn't look like we arranged to provide for evacuees. Should they just wander the desert? They probably stayed because there was no place to go :: shrug

To other cities? Iraq isn't a big desert anymore than Arizona or Nevada are. Lots of desert yes, but that not all it is.

You presently live in Nevada, if you knew Vegas was going to become a war zone and you could only relocate within Nevada would it be difficult for you to find a place to stay?

My understanding is that most folks have in fact left. It is only now that military age men are being detained before being sent on their way.

Even still with the curfew in place simply staying indoors after dark should guarauntee a reasonable amount of security.

[dave_a]

IOW, Bomb them, and who knows how many innocent civilians, into oblivion.

Typical Military, we need a scalpel, we don't have a scalpel, so we use a chainsaw.



If you have a solution that utilizes a scalpel rather than a blunt instrument feel free to present it.

I don't know that a victory there will make Iraq a paradise, but I don't see how those folks can be left to continue their bombings and such if the goal is security and safe elections.

So we stop them bombing us by bombing them to oblivion. :doh:

Yes. The assumption is that most of the Iraqis want something approaching freedom and democracy. A few do not. Those few are in Fallujah. Bombing them or destroying them by any means enables greater security to prevail. Of course this assumes they stick around to get bombed rather than fleeing. This is not guaranteed, but in general killing a few to create peace can work.

It seems like Vietnam in a way. We know where the bad guys are, but the political will doesn't exist to allow us to go after them meaning we have to deal with them on their terms. It seems like in this case the political will to take the battle to them does exist. How well it will work out remains to be seen.

Except we're NOT dealing with them on their terms. We're playing the big bad "blow it up and pave it over" approach against a few insurgents.

No, if that were the case we would have simply bombed Fallujah already.

It's the mistake we repeatedly made in Vietnam, and we're making it here. The difference, of course, being that we're making it on a FAR grander scale.

"In Vietnam we became Ho Chi Minh's greatest recruiter. A gunship would fly by a village and an enemy would shoot off a few rounds; the bird would do a 180 and retaliate by hosing down the village and killing innocent civilians. We just helped the guerrillas move that village's allegiance from Saigon to Hanoi. That was their goal, and we fell for it time and time again."
--Col. David Hackworth (ret.), "Why the Military Never Learns."

Deja Vu, anyone?

I rather doubt it. It would seem the months long stand off was custom tailored to allow those not wanting to become martyrs to leave and the curfew is a means of allowing those remaining who do not wish to fight to have a measure of security. The city isn't going to be carpet bombed. If that was the plan there would be no Marines staging for an assault, the Air Force and Navy would be finished already.

I understand the war is immoral and ill advised, but it happened and is happening. Let's not become doomsayers without cause.

[Petra]

I assume we've all seen this simulation?

http://www.newsgaming.com/games/index12.htm

No, I hadn't seen that before. Thanks. Very eerie.

[Ronin]

Thanks for info Ronin. Doesn't matter where one looks, The Middle East, Eastern Europe, Africa....seems people are fighting for power, often simply power of their own desitinies. Sad

And I'm not convinced that certain "power" is bad.

For instance, I don't think anyone here would like to see a Taliban-like regime anywhere in the world and/or any other such theocratic oppression.

We argue and fight against that very thing in the US and yet perceive no need to intervene when such oppression exists elsewhere?

I think western law enforcement models and enlightened political power is a good thing.

Sometimes "freedom to assemble, protest and be free from having your tongues cut out" isn't possible for others and "power" must be used to eliminate such oppression.


No but we need one I think.

I, hereby, claim "Ronin's Law" to represent the adage that as an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Vietnam approaches one.

:wink:

[Dingfod]

Even still with the curfew in place simply staying indoors after dark should guarauntee a reasonable amount of security.Except for the fact that .50 caliber machine guns and 20mm cannons can shoot right through all but the thickest of walls and bombs, artillery shells and mortars really aren't all that particular about which house they flatten. Other than the risk of being killed in their own house, they're perfectly secure.

[LadyShea]

Thanks for info Ronin. Doesn't matter where one looks, The Middle East, Eastern Europe, Africa....seems people are fighting for power, often simply power of their own desitinies. Sad

And I'm not convinced that certain "power" is bad.

Thats what I meant, it just didn't come across. I can't fault people for wanting to live their lives and control their own destinies. They are just often thwarted by others looking to exploit their resources or control them.

For instance, I don't think anyone here would like to see a Taliban-like regime anywhere in the world and/or any other such theocratic oppression.

The Taliban weren't even "the people" of Afghanistan. They were foreigners who took advantage of the power vaccum left after the Soviets (another exploitave power) pulled out and left Afghansitan to the war lords. The every day person had little say so in their own life. And the US did nothing to help them for so long. I was writing my Congesspeople for years regarding Afghanistan and the Taliban, and mere months before 9/11 Bush gave the Taliban leaders millions of dollars, knowing they were a corrupt and illegal regime.

The people lose in these struggles, and it makes me sad.

We argue and fight against that very thing in the US and yet perceive no need to intervene when such oppression exists elsewhere?

I think western law enforcement models and enlightened political power is a good thing.

It is a good thing in some cases. But, with great power comes great responsibility for weilding it. I simply feel that oftentimes we go to the wrong place at the wrong time, or create messes we have to clean up later...like supporting Saddam for years, like encouraging an uprising at the end of Gulf War I only to withhold our promised support. We left those rebels to be gassed.

Sometimes "freedom to assemble, protest and be free from having your tongues cut out" isn't possible for others and "power" must be used to eliminate such oppression.

I agree to an extent, but feel we must also look to the long term implications. Getting rid of Saddam or getting rid of the Taliban is a tiny step. Neither Iraq nor Afghanistan have functional governments and our forces for policing are spread thin. This leaves both countries open to extremists moving in and siezing power. It may take years. How can we, as a power, be everywhere we are needed? I just think a lot more thought needs to go into how and who we support and defend.


No but we need one I think.

I, hereby, claim "Ronin's Law" to represent the adage that as an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Vietnam approaches one.

:wink:

LOL, okay, Ronin's Law it is.

[viscousmemories]

And I'm not convinced that certain "power" is bad.

For instance, I don't think anyone here would like to see a Taliban-like regime anywhere in the world and/or any other such theocratic oppression.

We argue and fight against that very thing in the US and yet perceive no need to intervene when such oppression exists elsewhere?

I think western law enforcement models and enlightened political power is a good thing.

Sometimes "freedom to assemble, protest and be free from having your tongues cut out" isn't possible for others and "power" must be used to eliminate such oppression.
I'm inclined to agree, Ronin. Unfortunately I think that makes us neocons. To me it seems contradictory to claim to be a humanist yet allow regimes like the Taliban to rule. They bullied their way into control of 90% of Afghanistan prior to our invasion, they weren't welcomed with open arms by a populace that yearned for their leadership. As I've said before I think we should have removed them long before 9/11 for their violent subjugation of women alone.

-oops, crossposted with LadyShea. Yeah, what she said.

[LadyShea]

To other cities? Iraq isn't a big desert anymore than Arizona or Nevada are. Lots of desert yes, but that not all it is.You presently live in Nevada, if you knew Vegas was going to become a war zone and you could only relocate within Nevada would it be difficult for you to find a place to stay?

Yes, Las Vegas sits in the middle of thousands of acres of desert. Most of Nevada is a huge empty desert. It's a 5 hour drive to the nearest cities large enough to house and feed more than a handful of people and both of those are OUTSIDE of the state. We could go to LA (5-6 hours with no traffic), Phoenix (same time driving). The only large enough city WITHIN the state is Reno (8 hours driving). Between Las Vegas and Reno is NOTHING. I have made the drive several times. Tiny old mining towns.

And thats for people who have cars....what about the thousands that don't? And when they get to those cities, where do they (we) stay? There aren't enough hotel room. I personally have friends in LA, but there is one highway to SoCal and getting there when thousands are evacuating would be a problem

Evacuees from Florida and the Gulf Coast had a difficult time even, and some found themselves sleeping in their cars. It took my mother three days to find a hotel room within 100 miles of the hospital so they would release my dad (he had a heart attck during Ivan)


My understanding is that most folks have in fact left. It is only now that military age men are being detained before being sent on their way.

Even still with the curfew in place simply staying indoors after dark should guarauntee a reasonable amount of security.

I don't see how staying indoors during air raids would offer much protection

[Dingfod]

I don't know why, but I am reminded of a headline that I sent to Jay Leno, which he read on his show "Police Kill Man to Prevent Suicide". Damned if you do, damned if you don't.

[Nathan Poe]

IOW, Bomb them, and who knows how many innocent civilians, into oblivion.

Typical Military, we need a scalpel, we don't have a scalpel, so we use a chainsaw.



If you have a solution that utilizes a scalpel rather than a blunt instrument feel free to present it.

The point is that we don't have a scalpel. We use the blunt instument because that's all we have, and we're under the impression that it's all we ever need.

Vietnam, Somalia, now Iraq. Whenever "Bomb them back to the Stone Age" was taken off the table, our performance has been less than inspiring.

I don't know that a victory there will make Iraq a paradise, but I don't see how those folks can be left to continue their bombings and such if the goal is security and safe elections.

So we stop them bombing us by bombing them to oblivion. :doh:

Yes. The assumption is that most of the Iraqis want something approaching freedom and democracy. A few do not. Those few are in Fallujah. Bombing them or destroying them by any means enables greater security to prevail. Of course this assumes they stick around to get bombed rather than fleeing. This is not guaranteed, but in general killing a few to create peace can work.

Of course, only the innocent civilians will leave, and only the big bad insurgents will stay. That's the crux of our strategy, is it not?


It seems like Vietnam in a way. We know where the bad guys are, but the political will doesn't exist to allow us to go after them meaning we have to deal with them on their terms. It seems like in this case the political will to take the battle to them does exist. How well it will work out remains to be seen.

Except we're NOT dealing with them on their terms. We're playing the big bad "blow it up and pave it over" approach against a few insurgents.

No, if that were the case we would have simply bombed Fallujah already.

HELLO? What do you think we're preparing to do as we speak?
(or has the bloodbath already begun as of this post?)

It's the mistake we repeatedly made in Vietnam, and we're making it here. The difference, of course, being that we're making it on a FAR grander scale.

"In Vietnam we became Ho Chi Minh's greatest recruiter. A gunship would fly by a village and an enemy would shoot off a few rounds; the bird would do a 180 and retaliate by hosing down the village and killing innocent civilians. We just helped the guerrillas move that village's allegiance from Saigon to Hanoi. That was their goal, and we fell for it time and time again."
--Col. David Hackworth (ret.), "Why the Military Never Learns."

Deja Vu, anyone?

I rather doubt it. It would seem the months long stand off was custom tailored to allow those not wanting to become martyrs to leave and the curfew is a means of allowing those remaining who do not wish to fight to have a measure of security. The city isn't going to be carpet bombed. If that was the plan there would be no Marines staging for an assault, the Air Force and Navy would be finished already.

I understand the war is immoral and ill advised, but it happened and is happening. Let's not become doomsayers without cause.

No, let's become doomsayers WITH cause.