Fallujah Casualites: Michael Moore asked Bill O'Reilly - Page 3 - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

smooth · 11-17-2004, 05:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by roachboy

i continue to find it fascinating how right discourse manages to divet debate into strange, irrelevant areas.

the fixation of the moment is the footage of a marine killing what appears to be an unarmed iraqi.

The shift is off the atrocity of the soldier's act and onto the newest video of Saddam's atrocities, "Buried in the Sand."

From here, I echo roachboy.

Quote:

the larger problem, of what the hell the americans are doing in iraq in general and in fallujah (now mosul) in particular goes unaddressed.

it is clear that the americans hoped to smash a central node in what they imagined to be the resistance. it is also clear that they did not manage it.
the assault on fallujah was marketed domestically as a precision attack. it is clear now that it was not.
it was marketed as an attempt to bolster the scheduled elections in iraq--there have been reports circulating from time to time of late saying that elections could well not happen as scheduled and would not be understood as legitimate if they did.

interesting situation, isnt it?

i still maintain that the americans are sliding well into a situation parallel to that france faced in algeria. same kind of assymetries in organization (vertical military vs. horizontal resistance)...same kind of tactics (declare war on an entire people, systematic use of torture justified on exactly the same grounds the right is now using) incoherence on the ground coupled with a gradual erosion of political position.

one result of this was a drastic polarization of political opinon in france.
by the time the fourth republic fell in 1958, france was on the edge of civil war.

at the time, for the right there were no war crimes, there was no torture.
for the left, both were abhorrent.
the right tried to enforce views of the actions in algeria almost exactly parallel to what you are seeing now--how to question the motives of "our boys"?

one more parallel: le pen surfaced in part on the basis of a right revisionist "history" of algeria--he was himself a paratrooper who engaged in well-documented acts of torture at the time. for le pen, it was a patriotic struggle blah blah blah---sound familiar?

you would think people would take the rare occaisions when something can actually be learned from the past.
but no.

the french right slid dangerously close of fascism during this period--you know about poujadisme?
same thing seems to be happening in the states.
however, in neither case did recourse to hitler make any analytic sense.
in neither case did recourse to hitler make any sense politically.
all it does is spike consideration of a real problem.

so far as i am concerned, arguments about the relation to both positions to a variant of fascism is fair game.
but it should be obvious that prudence is in order if we are going to head toward that space. highly inflammatory area--and no conservative will want to hear any of it. but then again, the constituency to whom that ideology has appealed historically did not want to hear it either. they do not like their politics to be named.

so it would seem that any such argument would have to be made carefully and in an analytic register.
i think there is a strong argument to be made.

Mephisto2 · 11-17-2004, 05:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ustwo

You know when lefties start to condemn the murder of Margaret Hassan with the same self righteous fervor they are condemning this young marine then I might take note of what they are saying.

The same goes for the Arab media as well.

Well, I guess you would consider me a leftie, and I condemn it in the most strongest terms possible.

I think it was a heinous crime. I repels me.

Why do you associate one's political beliefs as associated with whether someone condemn Hassan's murder? I find that short-sighted and downright insulting.

For what it's worth, the Arab media is condemning the murder. Even the American arch-enemy al-Zarkawi called for her release.

Quote:

Iraqis voice revulsion over killing
By Richard Galpin
BBC News, Baghdad

The people on the streets of the Iraqi capital, Baghdad, are filled with revulsion at the apparent murder of the aid worker Margaret Hassan.

Local television stations and Arabic satellite channels began broadcasting the news on Tuesday night.

Iraqis we spoke to condemned the brutal killing, describing it as a crime against humanity.

"She devoted her life to serve the Iraqi people and help them in difficult times," said Ali Najem a resident of central Baghdad.

He said: "We considered her to be an Iraqi citizen. The criminals who did this want to spoil the image of Iraq and spoil the efforts now under way to hold elections."

Inside a dingy room nearby, a large family sits around the television. Among them is 14-year-old Iman Ahmed.

She should be at school but her mother has told her to stay at home because she fears she could be kidnapped if she walks the city streets.

According to Iman, Mrs Hassan was a well-known figure in the capital and other parts of the country.

She says: "Did Margaret come here with the American soldiers to fight? No, she came here to help the Iraqi people. Many people liked her because she helped us."

Across the road, in a run-down building housing a large electricity transformer, elderly Abu Akram folds up his prayer-mat and comes to speak to us.

He is disgusted by the unknown gang of gunmen who abducted Mrs Hassan four weeks ago as she was being driven to work in the capital.

He says: "The people who did this are not in any way related to Islam because Islam respects women. Everyone has to work together to fight these terrorists."

As we return to our office, we meet Dr Kaydar Al-Chalabi, the director of a Baghdad hospital which specialises in spinal injuries.

Civilian deaths

He spent the past 15 months working with Mrs Hassan who, through her aid agency Care International, rebuilt his hospital which was looted after the war and then badly damaged in a bombing.

He says: "If Margaret Hassan is dead, it really is a great loss not just for her family but for the whole of Iraq.

"What she offered to Iraq was beyond imagination, she really felt the suffering of the people.

"She was not just director of Care International, she ran everywhere she was needed - whether it was a patient, a child, a hospital, or a water purification project, she was the first there with her staff," he added.

But amid the sorrow here, some people also wanted to remind us of the daily death toll of innocent Iraqi civilians caught up in the fighting and bombings across the country.

Thousands have died since the invasion in March last year, but their deaths largely go unreported by the international media.

Story from BBC NEWS:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/1/hi/uk/4020159.stm

Published: 2004/11/17 16:33:49 GMT

I consider you prejudiced against muslims and the Iraqi insurgents. But I had expected that you would not extend your prejudice to me.

Mr Mephisto

Mojo_PeiPei · 11-17-2004, 05:56 PM

I find myself wondering why the objective Arab media hasn't aired the execution, I suppose they would have to interrupt their non-stop airing of the marine tape.

Coppertop · 11-17-2004, 06:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kadath

Consider the Contras and Sandinistas

"Simultaneously, the U.S. administration of Ronald Reagan began organizing remnants of Somoza's National Guard into guerrilla bands known as "Contras" (short for "contrarevolucionarios", or counter-revolutionaries) that conducted terrorist attacks on economic and civilian targets."

Yeah, you don't see them (people who are for this war) mentioning the actions of the US when they condem terrorism. It is conveniently ignored. And that is hypocrisy.

Mephisto2 · 11-17-2004, 06:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mojo_PeiPei

I find myself wondering why the objective Arab media hasn't aired the execution, I suppose they would have to interrupt their non-stop airing of the marine tape.

Nope. Try again.

Feel free to watch this BBC piece on just this topic.

EDIT: Link didn't work. Just go to news.bbc.co.uk and it's on the bottom right.

Mr Mephisto

Mojo_PeiPei · 11-17-2004, 08:48 PM

I've heard the excuses, it's because she was an Arab Woman and they are Arab men, very disrespectful. Bullshit.

Ustwo · 11-17-2004, 08:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mr Mephisto

I consider you prejudiced against muslims and the Iraqi insurgents. But I had expected that you would not extend your prejudice to me.

Mr Mephisto

I'm not prejudice in the least. I have not 'pre-judged' them. I have seen their actions and I judge them. Please don't pretend you understand how I think.

powerclown · 11-17-2004, 09:54 PM

I'm late to this, so sorry if I rehash. I just wanted to say something (vent) about the Kevin Sites video and the surreal fallout:

Along with Abu Ghraib, another propaganda victory for the Bad Guys. Another 10,000,000 gallons of gasoline dumped onto the anti-American fire. Another 10 years at least added to this conflict most likely. Another disgraceful American media moment. Any benefit gained by the Fallujah Campaign (which was, militarily speaking, a success) will most likely be nullified by this one video. Iraqi elections in one month? There's going to be a bloodbath. Its like whack-a-mole now.

It just boggles my mind. I cannot conceive of why the American media would broadcast this bullshit worldwide. FOR WHAT PURPOSE!?!? Goddamn fanatical insurgents fighting from mosques getting sympathy from around the world now. Where in the fuck is the disconnect between the US Government, the US Media & the US Military??? Who the fuck is running the show here!?!? Its one step forward-2 steps back madness. My faith is fading fast.....

Manx · 11-17-2004, 10:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ustwo

I'm not prejudice in the least. I have not 'pre-judged' them. I have seen their actions and I judge them. Please don't pretend you understand how I think.

You have post-judged the actions of a handful and applied that judgement to all. That is prejudging.

smooth · 11-17-2004, 11:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by powerclown

I'm late to this, so sorry if I rehash. I just wanted to say something (vent) about the Kevin Sites video and the surreal fallout:

Along with Abu Ghraib, another propaganda victory for the Bad Guys. Another 10,000,000 gallons of gasoline dumped onto the anti-American fire. Another 10 years at least added to this conflict most likely. Another disgraceful American media moment. Any benefit gained by the Fallujah Campaign (which was, militarily speaking, a success) will most likely be nullified by this one video. Iraqi elections in one month? There's going to be a bloodbath. Its like whack-a-mole now.

It just boggles my mind. I cannot conceive of why the American media would broadcast this bullshit worldwide. FOR WHAT PURPOSE!?!? Goddamn fanatical insurgents fighting from mosques getting sympathy from around the world now. Where in the fuck is the disconnect between the US Government, the US Media & the US Military??? Who the fuck is running the show here!?!? Its one step forward-2 steps back madness. My faith is fading fast.....

If that pisses you off, you should see what the independent (non-embedded) reporters are saying, especially through channels that are not filtered via the military first.

I think I understand the intention behind your statement, but I would rather see as much information as possible. I don't appreciate the military sanitizing my news. I don't believe it's appropriate to snatch Iraqi reports out of protected areas (reportedly not being released or allowed to have contact). I also don't like our independent reporters' lives endangered or their cameras blocked from reporting anything. I want as much information before myself before I make a choice concerning issues I take an interest in.

host · 11-17-2004, 11:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by powerclown

I'm late to this, so sorry if I rehash. I just wanted to say something (vent) about the Kevin Sites video and the surreal fallout:

Along with Abu Ghraib, another propaganda victory for the Bad Guys. Another 10,000,000 gallons of gasoline dumped onto the anti-American fire. Another 10 years at least added to this conflict most likely. Another disgraceful American media moment. Any benefit gained by the Fallujah Campaign (which was, militarily speaking, a success) will most likely be nullified by this one video. Iraqi elections in one month? There's going to be a bloodbath. Its like whack-a-mole now.

It just boggles my mind. I cannot conceive of why the American media would broadcast this bullshit worldwide. FOR WHAT PURPOSE!?!? Goddamn fanatical insurgents fighting from mosques getting sympathy from around the world now. Where in the fuck is the disconnect between the US Government, the US Media & the US Military??? Who the fuck is running the show here!?!? Its one step forward-2 steps back madness. My faith is fading fast.....

Blame the press, powerclown, blame Michael Moore. It is so much easier to
do so than to do the hard work of sifting out the propaganda and the
manipulation of Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Rice, Powell, and others who created
the situation in Iraq, with the support of so many of our countrymen who
chose to stay blissfully misinformed as their "war president", in response to
the 9/11 attacks, launched our "payback" at the wrong people in the wrong
country. What are you willing to fight and die for, anyway? The right to
receive truthful and fact filled news reports from a free press, or filtered
reports from government censors? Is the truth such a minor thing that you
are willing to encourage reporters from U.S. based news media to withhold
or distort reports that, in your opinion, make the U.S. or it's military "look
bad" to the prying eyes of foreigners? If that is what you wish for, you also
are willing to give up the right to monitor the conduct of our political leaders
in order to hold them accountable, and you give up your own access to
accurate, fact filled reporting. To me, that is un-American rhetoric.

You appear to have lost all perspective of why we fight, who we should fight, and what we fight to preserve and protect, just like our criminal president and most of his supporters.........

sprocket · 11-18-2004, 12:37 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by host

Blame the press, powerclown, blame Michael Moore. It is so much easier to
do so than to do the hard work of sifting out the propaganda and the
manipulation of Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Rice, Powell, and others who created
the situation in Iraq, with the support of so many of our countrymen who
chose to stay blissfully misinformed as their "war president", in response to
the 9/11 attacks, launched our "payback" at the wrong people in the wrong
country. What are you willing to fight and die for, anyway? The right to
receive truthful and fact filled news reports from a free press, or filtered
reports from government censors? Is the truth such a minor thing that you
are willing to encourage reporters from U.S. based news media to withhold
or distort reports that, in your opinion, make the U.S. or it's military "look
bad" to the prying eyes of foreigners? If that is what you wish for, you also
are willing to give up the right to monitor the conduct of our political leaders
in order to hold them accountable, and you give up your own access to
accurate, fact filled reporting. To me, that is un-American rhetoric.

You appear to have lost all perspective of why we fight, who we should fight, and what we fight to preserve and protect, just like our criminal president and most of his supporters.........

I dont see it that way. Its an acceptance of the fact that we are in a war, whether we agree with it or not. And since we are in a war, it is in EVERYONES best interest (US and Iraqs) for it to end as quickly as possible with as few casualties as humanly possible. What good is the information if it happens to prolong the situation and causes more senseless death?

Mephisto2 · 11-18-2004, 12:50 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mojo_PeiPei

I've heard the excuses, it's because she was an Arab Woman and they are Arab men, very disrespectful. Bullshit.

I don't know where you heard this "excuse".

She was actually Irish.

Mr Mephisto

Mephisto2 · 11-18-2004, 12:55 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ustwo

I'm not prejudice in the least. I have not 'pre-judged' them. I have seen their actions and I judge them. Please don't pretend you understand how I think.

As I said, that's my considered opinion.

I don't pretend to understand how you think, as you shouldn't pretend to understand how I think. But I base my opinions on the history of your statements.

The murder of the injured Iraqi insurgent was a crime.
The murder of Hassan was also a crime, and even more terrible in my mind.

But when you make statements like "shooting was too good for him" when referring to an injured and probably dying man (insurgent or not), then that's prejudiced. In fact, it's excusing a capital offence (as far as I know, murder whilst under military command or the UMCJ is a capital offence?).

Mr Mephisto

smooth · 11-18-2004, 01:19 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mr Mephisto

I don't know where you heard this "excuse".

She was actually Irish.

Mr Mephisto

And I've heard they were Jordanians.

Kalibah · 11-18-2004, 01:24 AM

The insurgents are the 'bad' guys, they just 'disagree' with us

Thats the saddest thing I ever heard on TV, and Im surprised Chris Matthews said it with a straight face...

Pacifier · 11-18-2004, 01:25 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ustwo

You know when lefties start to condemn the murder of Margaret Hassan with the same self righteous fervor they are condemning this young marine then I might take note of what they are saying.

The murder of Margaret Hassan is indeed a terrible crime. But there is a difference between terrorists and american soldiers.

If a terrorist kills a civilian I'm not shocked, it is terrible crime, but that is what terrorists do.

If a soldier kills a civilian I'm shocked since soldiers are not supposed to do that

Kalibah · 11-18-2004, 01:30 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ustwo

You know when lefties start to condemn the murder of Margaret Hassan with the same self righteous fervor they are condemning this young marine then I might take note of what they are saying.

The same goes for the Arab media as well.

Look, I am not 'for' or against the marine- being guilty or not, i like to remind people that YOU have the benifit of watching the clip in the comfort of your SAFE home. He was there, being shot at, IEDs in corpses, blowing up when people move them, being shot at by Iraqis waving white flags to get Marines out in the open, etc.

Before ANYONE condems him, think what the events leading up to it were like. Put yourself in his shoes, remember what happened in the days leading up to it, like I said above, IEDs in corpses, etc, and THEN you might see why he did what he did. Honestly, if your in that room, and what you think is a coprse moves- you would instintivly shoot it- and dont dare deny that- you would... so would everyone else. Let the investigation take its course, but dont condem the man because you saw a clip, a snapshop, of what he was doing and had been through. Im not saying he made the right decision, im not saying he made the wrong one, im just saying he did what everyone else woulda done instictivly. He didnt shoot out of hate or malice- he did it out of instinct, and everyone ignores that fact

smooth · 11-18-2004, 01:40 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kalibah

Look, I am not 'for' or against the marine- being guilty or not, i like to remind people that YOU have the benifit of watching the clip in the comfort of your SAFE home. He was there, being shot at, IEDs in corpses, blowing up when people move them, being shot at by Iraqis waving white flags to get Marines out in the open, etc.

Before ANYONE condems him, think what the events leading up to it were like. Put yourself in his shoes, remember what happened in the days leading up to it, like I said above, IEDs in corpses, etc, and THEN you might see why he did what he did. Honestly, if your in that room, and what you think is a coprse moves- you would instintivly shoot it- and dont dare deny that- you would... so would everyone else. Let the investigation take its course, but dont condem the man because you saw a clip, a snapshop, of what he was doing and had been through. Im not saying he made the right decision, im not saying he made the wrong one, im just saying he did what everyone else woulda done instictivly. He didnt shoot out of hate or malice- he did it out of instinct, and everyone ignores that fact

He didn't do it instinctively. Humans don't have instincts, for one thing. Or, if you want to get all caught up in minuetia (?), then socialization and reasonable thought processes govern one's actions rather than whatever residual instincts we might have. He made a choice, and it was the wrong choice. We can judge that by its ramifications. We know the person did not have an explosive device on him. We also know the wounded were left in the Mosque for 24 hours prior (which is also wrong and I believe illegal).

He may have done it out of habit, training, or fear, but not out of instinct. Besides, what instinct do humans have to shoot other humans? Where would you trace that to?

And I've been meaning to say this about the use of Hassan in this thread:

It's despicable for Ustwo to even have brought her up in the fashion he did. I never saw one peep of a call for silence in her memory. And it's remarkably callous to use her name to make a political point. In fact, his actions mirrored those of the terrorists in my view--they, too, used her to make a political point.

stevo · 11-18-2004, 06:26 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by arch13

Stevo, as it was said by Thomas Jefferson, "You right to free speach end's where my fist touches your nose."
I have a god given right, not a right given by the US government, but a God given right to say what I feel. Likewise, you have a god given right to disagree and say what you feel.

I know many soldiers, and amongst them all I can give you the common reaction to your post, "He thinks every soldier is a hero who can do no wrong?!"
To re-itinerate, not ever soldier performs nobel actions, and in any group there are bad apples who should be removed from the gene pool. I make no judgement on this soldiers actions, but I truly hope you do not beleive that all military personel are are above reproach or questioning.
There where soldiers in Vietnam who handed live grenades to small children in ally villages and walked away before they exploded. Their justifacation? "They all looked the same to me."
Again, there are bad apples in any group of people and no man is inherantly above reproach for their actions, military included.

Do you think that questioning the actions of a soldier is akin to failing to support our troops? Becuase that statement is one that no true republican who cares for our country would ever say, nor would a democrat. Supporting our soldiers does not mean that we turn a blind eye to behavior that is not in line with our countries honor or meaning as laid out by our forfathers.

Being a soldier means that you must make hard choices regarding your actions that must be made quickly. That is what they are trained to do. Never has that meant that they where no accountable for their actions to both the American people and their superior officers. You simply choose to forget that our country did jail it's own for sick actions during WWII and that often soldiers who commited such actions where "killed by a misfired round" or other such things by their peers.

As for your portrait of the camera man, would you prefer he turned the camera off?
"Out of sight, out of mind" right Stevo?
Again, a soldier who performs actions inconsistent with what we stand for is no soldier at all as he failed to uphold our honor. It is not the job of the media to hid the actions of war, it is their job to show all of it, even the parts you think shouldn't be shown. The soldier didn't have the right to assume that his actions would not be videotaped. he was fully aware there was an embedded cameraman in his unit.

Because the soldier killed an injured man does NOT mean it is necessarily a war crime. Another wounded man in the mosque identified himself as such when the marines entered and he was not shot. The insurgent that was killed was faking death and the marines noticed he was moving. Twice to the right. perhaps to explode a grenade, perhaps to detonate an IED. Well you know what? He wasn't able to because he was killed. Now if that insurgent had identified himself as injured instead of faking dead his life would have been spared. Remember that it is a war crime to feign death in order to kill the enemy. Therefore the soldiers actions were justified.

Another thing. Just because it is out of sight, it is not out of mind. A US soldier is on trial right now for murdering an iraqi and no one caught that incedent on tape.

Quote:

Originally Posted by tellumFS

I don't agree with what the soldier did...two wrongs do not make a right. He should be investigated for killing an unarmed, injured man inside of a mosque

Do you know why he was in the mosque? To kill Americans! That is a war crime itself. Don't make it sound like this was some unarmed injured worshipper. This was an enemy of the US who was breaking the rules to kill americans.

powerclown · 11-18-2004, 07:09 AM

stevo22 is absolutely correct. Its really as clear as day.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pacifier

If a terrorist kills a civilian I'm not shocked, it is terrible crime, but that is what terrorists do.

If a soldier kills a civilian I'm shocked since soldiers are not supposed to do that

Mindboggling...
Please stop with the moral equivalency to terrorists. All these semantics about whether this was or wasn't a war crime are insane. What happened to that motherfucker in the mosque is no war crime. What do you think he was doing in that mosque in the middle of a warzone? Praying? Sweeping the floor? Watering the plants? Dusting off Qurans? Is it instead possible he was actually fighting and trying to kill US troops? Over 1100 insurgent killer rats were exterminated in this campaign; should we now have lawyers with briefcases and flak jacks embedded with the troops to verify the legality of each and every casualty? Madness.

The guy was an enemy combatant, plain and simple. He had weeks of warning to lay down his arms and stop fighting. He chose to stay and fight. He was killed in combat. It doesn't matter how. This is War. End of story.

Pacifier · 11-18-2004, 08:01 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by powerclown

What do you think he was doing in that mosque in the middle of a warzone?

WTF?
are you actually reading some of the articles?
he was left there by the mariens a day before! already captured and injured

roachboy · 11-18-2004, 08:25 AM

i continue to find it strange that the question of this campaign has been diverted onto this footage. while i agree that it appears to be a war crime, that appearance comes with all the limits/problems of any footage--it isolates particular sequences of events from what preceded and conditioned them, so you are in a position of not really knowing what you are seeing even as it unfolds in front of you.

remember the rodney king case? the defense argument that king adopted "the bullet posture" as he was getting the shit beat out of him? that "bullet posture" was read a threatening--only possible in the context of film-world.

the bigger question is about the campaign itself--what i posted above remains unaddressed here and a problem insofar as making judgements from press accounts is concerned. but the "battle of fallujah" seems to have been less than a ringing success, insofar as "crushing the insurgents" is concerned....

stevo · 11-18-2004, 09:17 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kalibah

Look, I am not 'for' or against the marine- being guilty or not, i like to remind people that YOU have the benifit of watching the clip in the comfort of your SAFE home. He was there, being shot at, IEDs in corpses, blowing up when people move them, being shot at by Iraqis waving white flags to get Marines out in the open, etc.

Before ANYONE condems him, think what the events leading up to it were like. Put yourself in his shoes, remember what happened in the days leading up to it, like I said above, IEDs in corpses, etc, and THEN you might see why he did what he did. Honestly, if your in that room, and what you think is a coprse moves- you would instintivly shoot it- and dont dare deny that- you would... so would everyone else. Let the investigation take its course, but dont condem the man because you saw a clip, a snapshop, of what he was doing and had been through. Im not saying he made the right decision, im not saying he made the wrong one, im just saying he did what everyone else woulda done instictivly. He didnt shoot out of hate or malice- he did it out of instinct, and everyone ignores that fact

Exactly...

stevo · 11-18-2004, 09:20 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pacifier

WTF?
are you actually reading some of the articles?
he was left there by the mariens a day before! already captured and injured

He might have been injured, but not captured.

powerclown · 11-18-2004, 09:22 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pacifier

WTF?
are you actually reading some of the articles?
he was left there by the mariens a day before! already captured and injured

Before I have an aneurysm, or get a triple-lifetime ban, I'll just say this: Let's just agree to disagree here, and move on.

Quote:

Originally Posted by roachboy

the bigger question is about the campaign itself--what i posted above remains unaddressed here and a problem insofar as making judgements from press accounts is concerned. but the "battle of fallujah" seems to have been less than a ringing success, insofar as "crushing the insurgents" is concerned....

Incorrect. The 'battle of fallujah' was an overwhelmingly successful miltary campaign any way you look at it. This could have been a bloodbath of American casualties (see: Grozny). It was planned by the world's most intelligent and experienced battle commanders, employing the most technologically advanced weaponry every used on a battlefield. It took one week, ONE WEEK!!, to take back Fallujah from the insurgents. It was a skilled, disciplined, comprehensive victory, looking at it from an historic viewpoint.

The problem now is ENTIRLEY a political one; proper governance and security of the city are the main questions. I think the Americans could learn a thing or two from the British about diplomacy, civil affairs, and post-combat operations, where they have failed miserably in my opinion. The Americans have continually shown their adeptness at snatching defeat out of the jaws of victory. Like I said, its one step forward, 2 steps back. If they continue to be unable to consolidate their military victories into political progress, then civil war is inevitable.

powerclown · 11-18-2004, 09:57 AM

doubledoubledoubledoubledoubledouble

roachboy · 11-18-2004, 10:26 AM

only problem with your interpretation, powerclown, is that it seems that the major force of insurgents that was anticipated was not really there, not in anything like the force that was marketed. so, it that's true, then......

powerclown · 11-18-2004, 04:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by roachboy

only problem with your interpretation, powerclown, is that it seems that the major force of insurgents that was anticipated was not really there, not in anything like the force that was marketed. so, it that's true, then......

There's no problem with my interpretation, roachboy, the problem of interpretation is yours. There were 1200 insurgents reported killed. The objective was to take control of the city out of the hands of the bad guys, and into the hands of the Iraqi security forces. This objective was completed successfully, and it took all of 1 week. These insurgent clowns, fighting in sandals and warm-up suits, crumbled in less than 7 days. And this was their 'stronghold'.

Again, the solution isn't military, obviously. These bugs can be squashed wherever, whenever. The fight is for the approval of the Iraqi citizens. They don't seem to know what the hell they want, and completely unneccesary garbage (probably aired with the approval of anti-Bush TV execs) like the Sites video only makes things worse, or better, depending how you look at it.

joeshoe · 11-18-2004, 05:06 PM

If some over 18 wants to fight, then he should be able to make that choice. But I also believe that a person cannot be forced to fight, i.e. a draft, even in defending his country. If he doesn't want to fight, and he ends up losing his liberty, then he should simply receive the consequences of his actions (or inaction).

pedro padilla · 11-18-2004, 05:16 PM

what the fuck is an insurgent anyway? seems to cover a lot of different ground here. Kind of catch all name meaning any human not in US "coalition" fatigues.

smooth · 11-18-2004, 05:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by powerclown

There's no problem with my interpretation, roachboy, the problem of interpretation is yours. There were 1200 insurgents reported killed. The objective was to take control of the city out of the hands of the bad guys, and into the hands of the Iraqi security forces. This objective was completed successfully, and it took all of 1 week. These insurgent clowns, fighting in sandals and warm-up suits, crumbled in less than 7 days. And this was their 'stronghold'.

Again, the solution isn't military, obviously. These bugs can be squashed wherever, whenever. The fight is for the approval of the Iraqi citizens. They don't seem to know what the hell they want, and completely unneccesary garbage (probably aired with the approval of anti-Bush TV execs) like the Sites video only makes things worse, or better, depending how you look at it.

You sound like you swallowed the president.

He accused kerry of being stuck in a pre-9/11 mindset, yet he was the one stuck in the past.

His inability to connect the realities of fighting a decentralized enemy plays out in the media, which amplifies his message, and settles in your mind as an objective fact.

The reason why both Iraq and Fallujah were pieces of cake are because there is no centralized command. There is no stronghold. The fighters melted away again. That is failure in this type of war. Especially if you hinge victory on the notion of winning hearts and minds of people.

Tens of thousands of Iraqi civilians are being killed by direct military action and indirectly due to the disruption to the cities. These events in no rational universe equate to victory.

What exactly is going on with the interim goverrnment? The top people are resigning and elections are nowhere on the horizon--aren't they supposed to be happening in a few weeks? It's sickening that those people's offices are being raided and the people disappearing and harassed by our government (oh, scratch that, by other governments that we fly them to).

powerclown · 11-19-2004, 12:25 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by smooth

You sound like you swallowed the president.

He accused kerry of being stuck in a pre-9/11 mindset, yet he was the one stuck in the past.

His inability to connect the realities of fighting a decentralized enemy plays out in the media, which amplifies his message, and settles in your mind as an objective fact.

The reason why both Iraq and Fallujah were pieces of cake are because there is no centralized command. There is no stronghold. The fighters melted away again. That is failure in this type of war. Especially if you hinge victory on the notion of winning hearts and minds of people.

Tens of thousands of Iraqi civilians are being killed by direct military action and indirectly due to the disruption to the cities. These events in no rational universe equate to victory.

What exactly is going on with the interim goverrnment? The top people are resigning and elections are nowhere on the horizon--aren't they supposed to be happening in a few weeks? It's sickening that those people's offices are being raided and the people disappearing and harassed by our government (oh, scratch that, by other governments that we fly them to).

First of all, Bush isn't on the ground planning the fighting. His commanders are. And they understand fully the nature of this insurgency. And as far as the media reporting the situation, they've done just about everything they can do to portray this in a negative light. So when you say that Bush can't understand how to fight a decentralized insurgency, I would say, yeah maybe he can't personally, but his generals can. And they're doing it, slowly. The strategic victory of Fallujah was the removal of one more place for them to hide. And it absolutely was an insurgent stronghold, a sanctuary, a rallying point, a financial hub, a waystation for traveling bandits, a philosophical center, a resting place, an ammo dump, a command and control base, on and on. Iraq doesn't have too many big cities where these roaches can find sanctuary. Now they have one less place. And pretty soon they won't have anywhere else to hide.

You want to know who the mindless killers of Iraqi civilians are? The fanatical Iraqi suicide bombers who kill 20-30-40 fellow Iraqis at a time every other day by driving carbombs into crowds of civilians. I think you'd find it quite enlightening to read about the extent to which US forces go out of their way to avoid civilians casualties. I know I did.

As far as elections go, they're on schedule. If you are referring to Chalabi as the one whose house was raided, well too bad for him, the rumor was that he was running his mouth to the Iranians, so now he's out and Allawi is Interim Prime Minister.

host · 11-19-2004, 12:41 AM

So far from the original topic, but still a lively exchange of ideas....

Quote:

We are met on a great battlefield of that war. We are met to dedicate a portion of it as the final resting place of those who gave their lives that that nation might live. It is altogether fitting and proper that we should do this.

But in a larger sense, we cannot dedicate, we cannot consecrate, we cannot hallow this ground. The brave men, living and dead, who struggled here, have consecrated it far above our poor power to add or detract.

The world will little note, nor long remember, what we say here, but it can never forget what they did here. It is for us, the living, rather, to be dedicated here to the unfinished work that they have thus far so nobly carried on. It is rather for us to be here dedicated to the great task remaining before us, that from these honored dead we take increased devotion to that cause for which they gave their last full measure of devotion; that we here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain.....

I believe that the following quote is in keeping with the quote above, but....

Quote:

Not a single member of Congress wanted to sacrifice their child for the war in Iraq. And who could blame them? Who would want to give up their child? Would you?
[Shot of President Bush appears onscreen]
Narrator: Would he? I've always been amazed that the very people forced to live in the worst parts of town, go to the worst schools, and who have it the hardest are always the first to step up, to defend us. They serve so that we don't have to. They offer to give up their lives so that we can be free. It is remarkably their gift to us. And all they ask for in return is that we never send them into harm's way unless it is absolutely necessary. Will they ever trust us again?
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0361596/quotes

If you believe, as I do, in what Moore scripted above, in Farenheit 9/11, and
in Lincoln's premise that we cannot permit the dead who sacrificed their
all to preserve their country, to ever "die in vain", what do we say to the families of the dead and
the wounded in Bushco's "war of choice", and, a more pressing matter, to
those Bush and Rumsfeld order to fight "to bring freedom to the Iraqi people",
in the coming days.....and months.....and years......

What the fuck are our leaders ordering are troops to fight and die for?
Is another U.S. casualty in Iraq "absolutely necessary", or worth the cost?
God bless the fallen U.S. soldiers and the Iraqi non-combatants in Fallujah.
Investigate and prosecute Americans and foreigners who conspire to wage <br>illegal military acts of aggression, and who commit war crimes. If our
appointed leaders do not act legally, morally, and forthrightly, as citizens,
we have no obligation to support them in their immorality, deceipt, and
aggression. Supporting these leaders is not patriotic. Protesting and resisting
their criminality is the highest form of patriotism that an American can
aspire to, and it is the only way to insure that our troops do not die in vain.

daswig · 11-19-2004, 12:50 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by host

If our
appointed leaders do not act legally, morally, and forthrightly, as citizens,
we have no obligation to support them in their immorality, deceipt, and
deception. Supporting these leaders is not patriotic. Protesting and resisting
their criminality is the highest form of patriotism that an American can
aspire to, and it is the only way to insure that our troops do not die in vain.

So, we're back to "Treason is Patriotic!" as an ideal to sell our Youth. It was tried by Kerry, and look at where that got him...

host · 11-19-2004, 01:01 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by daswig

So, we're back to "Treason is Patriotic!" as an ideal to sell our Youth. It was tried by Kerry, and look at where that got him...

daswig, I hope that you are not awake at this hour because you are in
too much discomfort to sleep. I wish that you could recognize what is so
obvious to me. The Bushco have sent our wonderful, dedicated troops to
fight, suffer, and sometimes die in a place that is not absolutely necessary
for them to be fighting in, and for reasons that are less justified each time
they morph and wilt in the face of the facts.

Quote:

"How do you ask a man to be the last man to die in Vietnam – How do you ask a man to be the last man to die for a mistake?" ........John Kerry April 23, 1971

pan6467 · 11-19-2004, 01:10 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by daswig

So, we're back to "Treason is Patriotic!" as an ideal to sell our Youth. It was tried by Kerry, and look at where that got him...

Funny Clinton lied about a blow job, hurting absolutely noone but himself and his family the GOP were ready to hang him. And noone complained about the GOP being unpatriotic or treasonous.

W lies about the reason for war resulting in 1000's of deaths and wounded and billions of our tax dollars going over there, and if anyone says anything against him it's treason.

Sorry I grew up in an America where IT IS MY RIGHT to call the president a liar and to ask for or support those asking for a special counsel investigation.

It is also my right to question a war feeding Haliburton's wallet.

It is noone's right to attack me for saying what I believe to be true. You can attack my ideas and debate what I say, but no man has the right to attack and condemn another as a traitor or "unpatriotic" for exercising his rights. That would be very Fascist or Communistic....

daswig · 11-19-2004, 02:05 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pan6467

It is noone's right to attack me for saying what I believe to be true. You can attack my ideas and debate what I say, but no man has the right to attack and condemn another as a traitor or "unpatriotic" for exercising his rights. That would be very Fascist or Communistic....

Sorry, but you're 100% WRONG. You have a right to spout whatever sophomoric bullshit your heart desires. And I have a right to call "bullshit" on it. Your freedom of speech doesn't allow you to say whatever you want without criticism from others. Democrats seem to have a very hard time with this concept. If you're the Dixie Chicks, you have a right to say whatever you want, and the people who buy your music have the right to tell you to "get fucked" and refuse to buy your music in response. That's not censorship, that's the FREE EXCHANGE OF IDEAS. The sooner the left gets away from the whole "free speech for me, but none for thee" bit, the sooner they'll stop being percieved as whiny little losers.

I'd like to point out one little thing to you. Once upon a time, there were a couple who lived in the US, and thought that "freedom of speech" and "freedom of conscience" made it OK for them to pass highly classified information to the Soviet Union, so, being good little leftists, they did so, putting the lives of all Americans in danger. They got caught. Oops. Care to wager a guess as to what happened to them? Think "gas chamber". And you know what? They deserved it, because their actions put us ALL at risk. Some leftists today need to have the same exact thing happen to them....for instance, people like these:

should have been arrested, tried for giving aid and comfort to the enemy along with sedition, and upon their conviction, they should have been executed after due process of law. Or, remember that guy who rolled the grenade into his unit's CP right before GulfwarII started? He's another candidate for an involuntary overdose.

smooth · 11-19-2004, 02:40 AM

Yes, we are all aware of your murderous fantasies by now.

The difference between your version of events with the facts is that physically threatening someone is not an appropriate method to convey dissent.

Intimidating or even threatening someone, as the Dixie Chics were, is not expressing ideas, it's barbaric and completely expected from someone like you who prefers violence to discussion.

Usually you quip back with war is peace or peace through war or something like that.

daswig · 11-19-2004, 06:50 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by smooth

Yes, we are all aware of your murderous fantasies by now.

The difference between your version of events with the facts is that physically threatening someone is not an appropriate method to convey dissent.

Intimidating or even threatening someone, as the Dixie Chics were, is not expressing ideas, it's barbaric and completely expected from someone like you who prefers violence to discussion.

Usually you quip back with war is peace or peace through war or something like that.

I suggest you reread my post, and notice where I stated the "due process of law" bit. That's not threatening somebody, that's saying the law should be enforced, by the people who we pay to enforce the law.

11-17-2004, 05:56 PM	#83 (permalink)
Mojo_PeiPei Kiss of Death Location: Perpetual wind and sorrow	I find myself wondering why the objective Arab media hasn't aired the execution, I suppose they would have to interrupt their non-stop airing of the marine tape. __________________ To win a war you must serve no master but your ambition.

11-17-2004, 08:48 PM	#86 (permalink)
Mojo_PeiPei Kiss of Death Location: Perpetual wind and sorrow	I've heard the excuses, it's because she was an Arab Woman and they are Arab men, very disrespectful. Bullshit. __________________ To win a war you must serve no master but your ambition.

11-18-2004, 08:25 AM	#103 (permalink)
roachboy Super Moderator Location: essex ma	i continue to find it strange that the question of this campaign has been diverted onto this footage. while i agree that it appears to be a war crime, that appearance comes with all the limits/problems of any footage--it isolates particular sequences of events from what preceded and conditioned them, so you are in a position of not really knowing what you are seeing even as it unfolds in front of you. remember the rodney king case? the defense argument that king adopted "the bullet posture" as he was getting the shit beat out of him? that "bullet posture" was read a threatening--only possible in the context of film-world. the bigger question is about the campaign itself--what i posted above remains unaddressed here and a problem insofar as making judgements from press accounts is concerned. but the "battle of fallujah" seems to have been less than a ringing success, insofar as "crushing the insurgents" is concerned.... __________________ a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear it make you sick. -kamau brathwaite

11-18-2004, 10:26 AM	#108 (permalink)
roachboy Super Moderator Location: essex ma	only problem with your interpretation, powerclown, is that it seems that the major force of insurgents that was anticipated was not really there, not in anything like the force that was marketed. so, it that's true, then...... __________________ a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear it make you sick. -kamau brathwaite

11-19-2004, 02:40 AM	#119 (permalink)
smooth Junkie Location: Right here	Yes, we are all aware of your murderous fantasies by now. The difference between your version of events with the facts is that physically threatening someone is not an appropriate method to convey dissent. Intimidating or even threatening someone, as the Dixie Chics were, is not expressing ideas, it's barbaric and completely expected from someone like you who prefers violence to discussion. Usually you quip back with war is peace or peace through war or something like that. __________________ "The theory of a free press is that truth will emerge from free discussion, not that it will be presented perfectly and instantly in any one account." -- Walter Lippmann "You measure democracy by the freedom it gives its dissidents, not the freedom it gives its assimilated conformists." -- Abbie Hoffman

11-17-2004, 09:54 PM	#88 (permalink)
powerclown Junkie Location: Detroit, MI	I'm late to this, so sorry if I rehash. I just wanted to say something (vent) about the Kevin Sites video and the surreal fallout: Along with Abu Ghraib, another propaganda victory for the Bad Guys. Another 10,000,000 gallons of gasoline dumped onto the anti-American fire. Another 10 years at least added to this conflict most likely. Another disgraceful American media moment. Any benefit gained by the Fallujah Campaign (which was, militarily speaking, a success) will most likely be nullified by this one video. Iraqi elections in one month? There's going to be a bloodbath. Its like whack-a-mole now. It just boggles my mind. I cannot conceive of why the American media would broadcast this bullshit worldwide. FOR WHAT PURPOSE!?!? Goddamn fanatical insurgents fighting from mosques getting sympathy from around the world now. Where in the fuck is the disconnect between the US Government, the US Media & the US Military??? Who the fuck is running the show here!?!? Its one step forward-2 steps back madness. My faith is fading fast.....

11-18-2004, 01:24 AM	#96 (permalink)
Kalibah Insane Location: Padded Playhouse	The insurgents are the 'bad' guys, they just 'disagree' with us Thats the saddest thing I ever heard on TV, and Im surprised Chris Matthews said it with a straight face...

11-18-2004, 09:57 AM	#107 (permalink)
powerclown Junkie Location: Detroit, MI	doubledoubledoubledoubledoubledouble

11-18-2004, 05:06 PM	#110 (permalink)
joeshoe Crazy Location: California	If some over 18 wants to fight, then he should be able to make that choice. But I also believe that a person cannot be forced to fight, i.e. a draft, even in defending his country. If he doesn't want to fight, and he ends up losing his liberty, then he should simply receive the consequences of his actions (or inaction).

11-18-2004, 05:16 PM	#111 (permalink)
pedro padilla Insane	what the fuck is an insurgent anyway? seems to cover a lot of different ground here. Kind of catch all name meaning any human not in US "coalition" fatigues.