They HAVE to go into Fallujah

[underpants]

I am as upset as anyone else here-the casualties on both sides (US troops and innocent civilians) are expected to be high. It is wishful thinking to think that they won't be but I do hope that is the case.

The point here is that, from a military standpoint alone, they have to go into Fallujah it has just been a matter of when. The US Army can't let parts of Iraq be out of their control that just can't happen. From a rebuilding standpoint if the goal really is a stable Iraq they have to start taking the fight to the "terrorist""rebels" or what ever you want to call them.

THIS is exactly the main reason I was against the war to start with-anyone who took 5 minutes to think what would likely happen in Iraq knew it would come to this and that many many US soldiers and Marines would pay the price. I have a relative in Fallujah as I type.

Yes they held off until after the election there is no doubt about that. There also should be no doubt that if Kerry had won he would have been advised to do the same. There was no getting around this. I don't like it, I knew this was going to happen but the they can't have massive parts to the country out of their control it's just that simple.

Pray and hope for our troops and for the people who have nothing to do with this. This isn't in the long run going to help the US or the new Iraqi government but they really don't have a choice, they got themselves in this situation.

[mhr]

1. Fallujah = Guernica - Bush = War Criminal - Americans = Guilty Enablers

'nuff said

[bowens43]

11. absolutely correct. There is NO justification for this.

[underpants]

19. Seriously educate me

I guess I don't understand what the alternative IS at this point.

Seriously tell me what I am missing here.

[underpants]

23. Complete pull out?

Do you really think that will happen?

[mhr]

29. Leave, Leave, Leave - We Have No Business There To Begin With

Never Did - Using A Trumped Excuse Of Terrorism Is Not A Justification - It Is Only A Rationalization.

Want an education - read Seymour Hersh's new book - Chain Of Command.

He seriously undermines all credibility that Bush claims for the "war on terrorism."

[underpants]

39. Okay

I will get it this weekend.

Still that was then this is now. This is the situation that WE find ourselves in-there really isn't a choice right now in terms of how the military looks at this. Retreat/defeat isn't even close to being on the table for them.

[K-W]

41. Then put it on the table, that is no excuse.

It is an illegal, unjustified war.

It is just as illegal to continue it as it was to start it.

[mhr]

50. It Is Not A Military Decision - It Is A Political Decision

We can pull all our troops back to well defended positions and then slowly extricate them from Iraq.

If Iraqis them want to implode that is their business not ours.

We do not need to be there, period!

[bowens43]

47. The alternative

is to admit defeat, admit that the war was wrong, admit that the UN and the rest of the world were right, apologize and ask the UN to assume control of all aspects of the rebuilding of Iraq. All military operations in Iraq should be directed by the UN. When this happens I believe that we would see many more countries, especially Muslim countries , step up to the responsibility of stabilizing Iraq. The will never be a legitimate government in Iraq as long as the US is occupying Iraq. The fighting will not end until US forces leave Iraq. The US should pull back and maintain the status quo until we can leave.

[wadestock]

96. Consider the alternatives....

First off...in order to get the military/police back to some ability to maintain control after they dropped the ball and gave back most of the country to them....will require 300,000 to 500,000....since I've read it would take about 300,000 on the borders to try and stifle the influx of new terrorists, and about 150,000 to maintain some control from within.

As you can see, this is a mind boggling figure of military/police that is required. There is simply too much territory to cover to protect against this level of new terrorism, and those coming in know it. The hatred for US presence coupled with loads of ammo means you'd be fighting for ever. If you truly understand this level of problem, you have to breathe just one ity bitty sigh of relief that Kerry isn't presented with this insurmountable problem.

So you could take this approach, or you could allow parts of the country to "splinter off" ....meaning you have less ground, especially perimeter to try and protect. This would of course take a complete epiphany on the part of Bushco because as we know they want to "rewrite the history books" and democratize the Middle East. For them...it's an all or nothing scenario to have the country magically become a democracy.

But even if you could maintain some central location say around Bagdad and then keep order there.....you'd have to maintain a very tight security ring, and probably have constant marshall law within the ring. Not very livable...not very practical. Not of any real benefit except for the hollow reason to maintain some US Military presence there.

So when you consider the above....you really are left with a couple stark realities....

1. Bushco will not budge on the theory that they can democratize the Middle East, so they're stuck with a war they can't win. The level of troops necessary to ensure complete control over the country requires a mind boggling perimeter military police, a large internal military police and probably constant marshall law within the country. It becomes a ridiculous police state like we've never imagined.

2. The only way to stop the fighting is to announce a truce. Say to the world that the great experiment in democracy is over, offer to leave and turn over sovereignty to the Iraqis, give it a chance and see what happens. If in fact there is a let up, then you have a theoretically framework on which to bring some form of peace.

3. But the creation of this "power vacuum" by Bush may never completely heal itself. In effect, a country was destroyed, and its army completely dismantled.

It is without a doubt the most feeble minded, careless experiment that any of us will see in our lifetimes. The only chance this ever had was to happen from within.

[okieinpain]

69. it won't matter, they will just move to another part of iraq and

start up again. this is a lost war. we will win battles all of the place, but the war will never be won. dumb asses they all are.

[lovedems]

2. I completely see what you are saying

but the only reason we HAVE to go into in Fallujah is because this administrations incompetence has no boundaries. Had they secured Iraq after Baghdad fell, it is likely we wouldn't have seen the destruction we have seen over the past 18 months. It is a shame we are going to see such a loss on both sides because of Bush and Rumsfelds mistakes. Everyone else pays a price but the ones on top.

I know this is the situation we find ourselves in now but it didn't have to be this way.

[underpants]

8. Okay I should have said "at this point"

You are right. This is the result of gross incompetence and huge assumptions from the beginning.

[lovedems]

21. I wasn't trying to be jerk or a contrarian

Like you, putting Fallujah aside, I don't even know why we are there in the first place. (Well, I know Halliburton wanted some tax payers money hence the bomb, rebuild, bomb, rebuild, bomb, rebuild pattern that is taking place.) It just really sucks that we are there at all and really, really sucks we are there with poor planners.

I guess the pattern will continue.

Edited to add: Do you think the missive explosives will now turn up in this battle? I would really hate to see that but jeesh, the consequences of that *should* be devastating for Bush.

[underpants]

27. Oh no I didn't think you were

Look if Osama popping up 4 days before the election is seen (spun) as a POSITIVE for Bush this will be too -stregth manliness and all that.

The press has psy-oped the whole country into thinking that no matter what happens it is good for W.

[G_j]

3. I suppose they "had" to drop

all those hundreds of tons of bombs on Vietnam too.

[JohnyCanuck]

4. Ever played Whack-a-Mole?

Check out the US Army's latest virtual reality simulator to train Iraqi troops in fighting the Iraqi insurgency.

http://www.miniclip.com/wack.htm

[StopThief]

5. You are absolutely correct!

All we can do is hope for victory with the fewest possible casualties on all sides.

[Beetwasher]

6. Yeah, But It's Still Hopeless and Unwinnable

Yes, from a military perspective it has to be done. But we still can't win. After Fallujah there will be another town and another and another etc.

[saigon68]

15. Agreed Beet -- the venue will move

And hundreds of thousands of angry young Muslims will be itching to test the courage of the latest breed of Christian Supermen, who are on this mission for "Democracy" (WTF that means) and Jesus.

[chiburb]

7. One can only hope that you're wrong about the casualties...

Just maybe, the delay over the last month or two gave most of the "resitance" time to get out intact. I know this only delays the inevitable you described in your OP, but maybe the bloodshed can wait another day?

I agree we broke it, now we gotta pay for it...

[underpants]

12. Beetwasher and chiburb-a response to both posts

Both of you make good points but put them together and you see what is probably going to be the next move.

Just this morning Katie (I think) that perhaps many in the resistence had already gotten out and were waiting for the next fight in the next city or to rush back in when the smoke is cleared.

Frightening.

[chiburb]

18. I think we're in agreement, but you just never know...

What might happen if we/they can but more time. You could look at it as delaying the inevitable and you'd likely be right. But... sometimes things happen to change the course of history in ways unforeseen. I'm hoping for the unknown to become known?

[Beetwasher]

25. It's Not JUST That

You can't defeat an enemy that's literally not afraid of death. The suicide bombers are lining up to die now. It's unwinnable. The kids can't wait to blow themselves up and take a bunch of Americans w/ them. The massacre that is about to happen is only going to ensure that there will be more of them.

I know at this point, militarily speaking, we have to go in and do what we gotta do and I don't know what the alternative is. But the reality is, it's only going to get worse and worse from this point onward.

It's also not going to stay in Iraq.

[underpants]

28. Yeah gee couldn't have seen that coming

Oh wait yeah I could (not meant as a "look at how smart I am" thing) I saw it from two years ago.

Oooooh FearFactor is on! TWINS!

[puddycat]

45. please don't perpetuate myths about people. these are human beings!

(1) these are human beings we are about to annihilate
(2) they are afraid of death, like all other human beings
(3) they were not our enemy before * invaded their country
(4) people who are desperate and facing the most powerful military force in the world have a tendency to use guerilla warfare. What's unfair about that?

I know you probably don't mean to, but you sound freeper-like with that "they want to kill us all" mentality. I can guarantee you, if that were me in Iraq, and it was my country, I would be fighting the invaders to the death, also.

We have to keep the moral high-ground here, and we know this invasion was illegal and based on lies!

[Name removed]

48. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

51. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

54. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[K-W]

55. All human beings are afraid to die.

Some are just motivated to overcome that fear. Saying that they are not afraid to die is just a covert way of saying that they arent normal, crazy, etc. That way we dont have to rationally examine the reasons they do what they do.

That and attacking Fallujah is by no rational definition something we have to do.

[Beetwasher]

57. The Mere Fact That They Are Willing To Blow Themselves Up

means they have overcome that fear. I'm sure there is a part of them that is still afraid, yes. But their hatred of the US has trumped it. This is the enemy that we're fighting. That's just the reality. I am fully aware of the reasons they are doing what they are doing, it doesn't change the fact that this is who the military is fighting and that is why this war in unwinnable. You can't beat people that dedicated to defending their country.

Attacking Fallujah is not an imperative. Quite frankly I'm appalled that we are doing it. Militarily speaking however, if we are not pulling out of the country (which we're not) then the military has to do it. I don't like it. I don't want it to happen but that's just the reality from a military standpoint.

I make NO judgements about the actions of any of the Iraqi people. And my post contained no judgements about the attack on Fallujah, I'm merely examining the reality of the situation. Judgementally speaking, I'm appalled. Realistically speaking, I understand why what is happening is happening on BOTH sides.

[K-W]

61. You are spreading a destructive stereotype.

We are fighting people, with a divirsity of beliefs and backrounds. You are focusing on a small minority of these people who have decided to give up thier lives in a suicide attack. The fact of the matter is that almost all of those fighting us are not suicide bombers, they, like our soldiers are willing to give up thier lives, but would certainly rather not to. They are fighting for a reason.

By generalizing and stereotyping all the people fighting under the suicide bomber example, you dehumanize the group.

[Name removed]

62. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[K-W]

64. Why dont you learn to read your own writing

before giving lectures to me about reading comprehension. The other person arguing here may have misread you post, I didnt. And you can be as condescending as you want, you are still wrong.

"You can't defeat an enemy that's literally not afraid of death."

Now if you only meant the very small minority of those fighting us that are suicide bombers fine. But if that was the case it was your unclear writing, not anyone's bad reading comprehension that is the culprit here.

You did, however, seem to be making a broad generalization about the entire Iraq conflict based on the particular beliefs and actions of a very small minority of the people. You seem to be continuing to do so. There are people willing to sacrifice thier lives in almost if not every conflice ever in the history of the world. This does not tell us anything special. Focusing on suicide bombers is something that the right does to dehumanize those we are fighting, to make them into terrorists in the eyes of America.

I know this was probably not your intention, but you played into it just the same.

[Beetwasher]

65. Sorry, But You're Just Peddling Bullshit and Parsing Semantics

I stand by that statement.

"You can't defeat an enemy that's literally not afraid of death."

That's true and I stand by it. It's not a stereotype, it's not dehumanizing, it's fucking reality. Deal with it. It also doesn't mean that ALL of the resistance is suicide bombers, but some of them are and it's certainly a tactic they are using and it says a lot about their commitment to their cause. A commitment US soldiers DON'T have.

Why are you so against someone who is merely discussing reality? That's the fucking reality, deal with it. The resistance while not all suicide bombers is certainly willing to fight until every last one of them is dead. I'd do the same if it were my country. I'm not going to write a fucking 30 page paper to deal with every subtle implication of WHY they are doing what they are doing on this message board.

Get a grip. Parsing semantics makes you look like an idiot.

[K-W]

78. If that is reality, I'm riding a rainbow home from work today.

Im sorry that you think the people we are fighting in Iraq are different than us. Im sorry that youve rationalized that opinion to the point where you dont see the bigotry, that doesnt change the fact that it is there.

I understand that you aren't doing this intentionally, but that doesnt excuse it, nor does it excuse you childish flaming and condescension.

If uncle sam started a program to get suicide bombers, we would have suicide bombers. The existance of suicide bombers speaks almost solely to the fact that the enemy is so outgunned.

I am not parsing simantics, you are defending a mistake. Why dont you just admit that you overgeneralized and stop flaming the messanger because you screwed up.

[Name removed]

79. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[K-W]

85. I dunno, maybe because your profane ramblings are wrong?

The fact that you dont think we could have suicide bombers if we wanted to proves you have no clue. If your language and abuse werent enough of indicator. You are honestly telling me that the US government couldnt find young men in the US who are confused and disturbed enough to be convinced to give thier lives for the US?

You can try to rationalize your overgeneralization from suicide bombers for the rest of the day. You were wrong, you still are wrong. I agree with almost everything you have said here, except that one point that you continue to defend. The internal conflicts this causes in your argument are the causes of the disparity you see. I am including your faulty logic on that one point, you are ignoring it.

[Name removed]

90. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[ilovenicepeople]

67. If the military has to do "it"

Why the fuck did they wait for two months to do it?By suicide bombers do you mean the ones that kill Iraqi police officers, insuring the Americans have to stay in Iraq or the ones hiding in Fallujah waiting to blow up American soldiers?Just courious

[Beetwasher]

68. Huh?

I would think it's obvious why they waited. They waited until after the election. It's despicable, but there it is.

The resistances suicide bombers are killing Iraqi police officers AND US soldiers. I mean all of the suicide bombers. They are all dedicated enough to their cause to give their lives up for it and kill US soldiers and Iraqi's who side with the US. That's the ultimate dedication. Not sure of your point or the distinction.

[puddycat]

59. you said: You can't defeat an enemy that's literally not afraid of death.

If it makes you feel better to get angry at me instead of * and the insanity of this killer culture we are immersed in, then you should certainly be feeling better by now.

Now, please take a deep breath. I'm not your enemy.

[Beetwasher]

60. And That's True

So what? That's why this war in unwinnable. So what's your point?

If they are willing to blow themselves up, they have obviously overcome their fear of death. What's so hard to understand about that? Is a part of them still afraid? Sure, probably (but how can one truly know what another feels?), but their hatred of the US has trumped it they are willing to die to defend their country. The AREN'T afraid to die. The mere fact that they are blowing themselves up shows that quite clearly.

I don't like people twisting my words and taking what I say out of context and that's what you did. I made no judgements about the Iraqi's and yet that's what you were claiming I did. That's bullshit and I called you on it.

[bowens43]

9. all of Iraq is beyond thier control.

The chances are good that most of the resistance has already left Fallujah and is regrouping elsewhere. It is also very likely that for every resistance fighter killed in this battle several more will rise up to take their place.

This battle, like the war, is one that should not have been and did not need to be fought.

If their goal is a stable Iraq (and it isn't) they would try to bring legitimacy to the invasion/occupation by putting the UN in charge.

[CornField]

10. They didn't HAVE to go into Iraq.

This war is based on lies -- and we all sit here and allow it to continue.

[underpants]

14. I know I know

Like I said above this was the main reason why I was against (and protested) this war.

[earthside]

13. Yes, they have a choice.

Oh, there is a choice.

The problem is that the Bush regime and its puppet 'Saddam' Allawi will not recognize that an insurgency, a nationalistic resistance cannot be defeat by force. History has demonstrated this time after time.

So, in the sense that Bush and his military flunkies don't know what they are doing and continue to believe that 'might makes right' -- then it will appear that actions like 'taking out Fallujah' are not a matter of choice.

But for those of us in the reality-based community, we know that there is a choice ... Bush is just not making that decision.

And, I suspect, we will all suffer for Bush's arrogance and ignorance.

[G_j]

16. when your only tool is a hammer

every problem looks like a nail.

good post BTW...

[underpants]

17. Not to argue but what is the choice?

To give "them" a seat at the table? Will that stop others from attacking and not expecting to get some actual governing power out of it too? Have you seen a lot of people IN POWER willing to give some of it up?

I am not being a smart-a** here I just don't see AT THIS POINT what option they have. Yes they screwed this up from the conceptual point but right now what other option do they have. Again I in no way support any of this war just my fellow Americans and the innocents.

[Heyo]

31. One thing I disagree on...

...the insurgency is not a "nationlistic resistance" nor are they Iraqi patriots.

Patriots act in the best interest of their own people. Does that look like what these "insurgents" have been doing?

They kill mostly just other Iraqis, and are acting in their own interests and that of their leaders. You think Zarqawi goes to bed and night with a tear in his eye for innocent dead Iraqis? Yeah right. To him they are just collateral damage, too.

The "insurgency" or whataver you want to call it call are moronic jerk-wads who are being led by people much smarter than they are, yet too cowardly to blow their own selves up, they just hype up these impressionable kids on religious fervor to get them to do things that if they thought about logically they would never do. (something we've seen before throughout history for sure, many times)

It is being stirred up and instigated from other countries throughout the arab world.

There is no way that insurgency is acting "on behaf of the Iraqis"

Heyo

[manic expression]

80. Open your eyes

and maybe you'll see that the resistance has NOTHING to do with Zarqawi. They are completely different factions. The terrorists who commit suicide bombings are different than the people who ambush and use guerrilla warfare. They have NOTHING TO DO WITH EACH OTHER!!!

[Heyo]

92. Yet...

.....is either group *benefiting* the Iraqi people in *any* way? Or, are they both hurting them, making an already bad situation worse?

That's if they are different, as you say, which they may or may not be, and I could care less. None of them have the interests of the Iraqi people at heart, and the vast majority it is being instigated from OUTSIDE that country.

Heyo

[manic expression]

94. There is a contingent of foreign

Mujahadeen. They are not all that prominent in the resistance, however. The only time the resistance really hurts the Iraqi people is when the US forces punish the entire population for the actions of the insurgents. Another time when the resistance hurts "Iraqi" people is when they strike against those who are working with the US (the Iraqi Vichy, in a way). I think the resistance is fighting an occupying force which has caused unspeakable horror to the Iraqi people. To that, I believe they have the Iraqi people's interests at heart. However, the insurgents are a mixed group, and therefore are likely to have very different views on Iraq and its future. So there will be a big problem when America leaves, because different resistance groups (Shi'ite, Sunni, Kurd, Turkman) will most likely fight within each other when not united against the common enemy: the Americans.

[Oilwellian]

20. They will never regain control of Iraq

They lost that opportunity when they failed to send enough troops necessary to secure the country and their huge caches of conventional weapons. Fallujah will be a massacre which will only enrage the entire region.

Best wishes for your relative caught in this bloodletting.

[underpants]

22. So a pull out is the only option?

Do any of us really think that that might actually happen?

A complete "It is your problem now" pull out?

[Beetwasher]

30. The Realist In Me Says That's What We Should Do, But It's Not Ethical

It's not the right thing to do for several reasons.

Now, keep in mind, that's NOT why Bushcho. is staying. They are not staying for the ethical reasons such as rebuilding, establishing democracy, providing security etc. Bushco. is staying because they are in Iraq for good as a foothold (permanent military presence) and to steal the country's resources. If somehow, someway a new face was put on the occupation and through some miracle many people in the country were able to understand that we had no ideas of a permanent military presence and wholesale theft of their resources, we might have a better chance. Unfortunately, that's not the case.

[underpants]

36. Right you are exactly right

Aside the arguing about whether we should be there in the first place (only the "fight them there not here" crowd could possibly still believe in this) we find ourselves here now.

You are right, ethics say that we have their welfare in our hands and we can't just leave. I haven't gotten into it with the "Bring them home now" people but that is the reason that we can't.....not that that has a damned thing to do with the Bush rational as you pointed out.

Rummy is about to hold a press conference. Let the chest beating and penile enhancement start.

"When the New York Times said God is dead and the wars begun"

THIS is the war.

[K-W]

40. Leaving would be the best thing we could do for them

Bush is our president, our continued prescence there is negative, not positive

We have to get out, we wont leave this quagmire by trying to clean it up the same way we created it.

[Laelth]

76. The freepers right now ...

are debating these options, it seems:

1) complete pull-out
2) pull-back to our 14 new bases and let the Iraqis have a nice civil war
3) shift focus to Iran (invade it first before the Chinese army gets there)
4) wipe out the Sunnis and convert the rest to Christianity (or some other insane plan to make Iraq a puppet state)

They have no clue what to do. They're merely waiting to see what their fearless leader's "plan" is. And they generally have faith that all will turn out OK.

We know, of course, that their fearless leader has no plan. And that makes him all the more dangerous.

-Laelth

[underpants]

84. "before the Chinese army gets there"???

What the hell is that about?

[Laelth]

86. Looks like China and Iran signed a treaty.

(and this comes from freeperville, so I can't vouch for this)

But the assertion was that China and Iran had very recently signed a treaty. Iran gets cheap oil in exchange for protection under China's nuclear umbrella (i.e. China promises to defend Iran, with nukes if necessary, in the event the US attacks). The freeper who posited this argument seemed to believe that the Chinese might also deploy conventional forces in Iran. Oddly enough, none of the other freepers contradicted this story. It was all new to me.

Again, not a reliable source of information.

-Laelth

[Heyo]

24. I just hope...

...they can do what they've gotta do without hurting civilians.

I am hoping for the best, hoping they grab up some top guys, maybe even Zarqawi, and then the people can go back home. All one can do is hope for the best I guess.

It just sucks for the people who are caught in the middle, and for the fact that if they even go to the Americans for help, thugs will execute them.

Heyo

[G_j]

33. NONE of the 'top guys' are there

any longer. All the 'experts' I've heard discuss this agree on that.
The military is also entirely aware of this.

[molly]

26. I hope they all desert - just put down their weapons and leave

[donsu]

32. Of Course They Have A Choice!

and all of our troops who think it's nifty wonderful to kill for their god do not have my backing.

our troops have murdered more then 100,000 Iraqis. I don't want them back.

[Flubadubya]

34. Waiting until after the election for political purposes makes it worse!

I was listening to Jamie McEntyre on CNN yesterday and he was saying that the insurgents will have cars sitting around booby-trapped with bombs, and entire buildings strung with explosives to go off when the soldiers invade them.

That tells me a couple of things: 1) they knew there were going to be invaded by us, and 2) the delay until after the election allowed them to set up all this stuff to make it more lethal for our troops. BUCK FUSH!!!!!

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

35. The iron fist of desperation.

It won't work. In this case, as in so many other cases in history, the iron fist will produce only wreckage and more determined enemies. But, it is the only option left for those unable to face the obvious defeat.

It will only get worse.

[meti57b]

37. VIETNAM

.... VIETNAM ....

[Garbo 2004]

58. Yup. Soon they'll say they had to destroy the city in order to save it. nt

[jhain]

38. Fort Story soldier dies of injuries in Fallujah rocket blast

Fort Story soldier dies of injuries in Fallujah rocket blast
http://home.hamptonroads.com/stories/story.cfm?story=77801&ran=214835

The Virginian-Pilot
© November 8, 2004 | Last updated 11:04 AM Nov. 8

A Fort Story-based soldier has died from wounds he suffered in Iraq on Friday when he was injured in Fallujah during a rocket blast.

The Department of Defense announced the fatality this morning, saying Sgt. Carlos M. Camacho-Rivera, 24, of Carolina, Puerto Rico, died in the 31st Combat Support Hospital in Baghdad.

He was assigned to the 368th Transportation Company, 11th Transportation Battalion at Fort Story in Virginia Beach.

[SoCalDem]

42. It just pisses me off that they have waited so damned long..

and have done it in fits and starts.

Instead of seeing how FAST they could move in the beginning, they should have gone methodically and subdued towns as they went..

Bad planning..NO planning..

[Carolinian]

43. Convenient to have Fallujah to divert our attention from fraud.

[bowens43]

49. Good point.

The administration knew that if there wasn't a major story to draw attention away from the stolen election it would be front and center.

[underpants]

56. Now if you can deal with more than one thing/issue at a time

Hold it wait, you are right the sheeple will forget about any discussion of the party in power owning the machines to determine who is in power.....my bad.

[Straight Shooter]

44. bush and backers LOVE this stuff, the more death in Iraq, the better

It relieves them of the responsibility of paying attention to domestic issues such as children in poverty, battered women, loss of jobs, economic devastation, pollution, filth on the airwaves, on and on and on.

It SERVES THEIR PURPOSE, and their purpose is the only thing that matters.

bush CANNOT WAIT to institute the draft, it was set up from the beginning. This is why the weapons caches were left unguarded, so the "game" would go on and on. And with the draft, how will America pay for all those new troops for bush's endless war? By gutting every social program that ever existed to benefit the peons. And by gutting those programs, people will close ranks even further and take care of only their own. It's human nature. Things will get worse and worse and worse, until only a "strong-arm leader" can control this country. Guess who's waiting for that role?

bush and his backers knew exactly what they were doing. America has been played like a fiddle with an eerie tune.

And to think I was in a good mood until I read your post, underpants :P

[Inland]

46. Nothing but choosing between bad and worse left

Bad is an invasion. Worse is letting Fallujah alone. Or is it the other way around? Bush has already put us on the horns of a dozen dilemmas thanks to his idiot choices so far. Who the hell knows what to do now?

[Mick Knox]

52. what really bothers me is waiting until AFTER the election

Using troops in a political pawn game is WRONG.

[Bucky]

53. It's the same old Vietnam delimma all over again. A lose-lose situation

The choices are only bad. If we just up an leave, the consequences are worse the world around. America is the key component to most of the world's security arrangements. When the US flakes out and starts up wars for lazy reasons, the world is already destablized.

If we keep hammering away at the insurgents, killing thousands of "colateral" civilians along the way, the world hates us and fears us. But we also run the risk of a Vietnam-style exit, with people grappling for choppers as they exit the Green Zone and everything. If we flake out further and abandon Iraq to its own devices by pulling out entirely, more people die, our enemies take over, and the world hates us without fearing us. In both situations, there are terror networks around the middle east who are being emboldened to strike back at the "Great Satan" who's causing all this chaos.

This is what taking on optional, vanity wars means.

Would you rather live in a town with a corrupt sheriff or a town with no sheriff at all? There's not a good choice there.

[mhr]

66. That Argument That More People Will Die Is Pure Speculation

On your part based on an emotional image of desperate people hanging from helicopter runners in Vietnam.

The fact remains and will always remain we have no business being there and we had no business going there in the first place.

No amount rationalization will change these facts.

'nuff said.

[Bucky]

74. Re: your "nuff said"; You haven't said enough. The problem still remains

No question that we should not have gone in there as we did. I protested the war as much as most people here in DU. But now that we're in there and controlling the joint, it is not "pure speculation" that suddenly leaving will get more people killed. Their entire social order is being contained by American troops--and contained badly at that. But the local forces in favor of maintaining public order are practically nonexistent. Rumsfeld has been lying for almost 18 months about the training and equipping of domestic armed forces.

I don't believe that we, as a people, have a real fight with the Iraqi people. But if we leave them to the wolves, they will have a very real and very legitimate beef with us. The "wolves" in question are the Sadrists, the remaining Baathists, the hooligans and gangsters, the pro-Iranian insurgents, the revenge-prone Kurdish militias, and the al-Qaeda cells currently enjoying the recruitment bonanza Mr Bush has provided them. Right now they're all slightly fighting each other, but mostly resisting and dodging the US forces. Remove the American troops and you have a bloodbath on your hands as they all vie for control of the provinces.

The end result will be a new Saddam, or even the old one, or perhaps a segmentation of the country, with much of the south falling into Iran's direct control. Now--think about Iran having a militarized perch just spitting distance from Kuwait and the eastern Saudi oil fields. This is exactly what they've been wanting ever since they used their double agent Chalabi to conjob the neocons into knocking over Saddam in the first place.

[mhr]

75. Why Should Our Sons And Daughters Fight And Die Because

George W. Bush is a war criminal that led our country to war illegally, immorally, and with provocation.

Your argument is one of appeasement.

We should appease the hubris of * so that we do not lose face with the world.

I have one response.

F*** your appeasement!

[Bucky]

101. You CAN argue with me without tell me to F-- anything.

George W. Bush is a war criminal that led our country to war illegally, immorally, and with provocation.

I think you mean "with no provocation." Agreed on that count, altho "war criminal" is a legal term that has a significantly higher bar than "war profiteer" or "war aggressor".


Your argument is one of appeasement. We should appease the hubris of * so that we do not lose face with the world.

No, I am not trying to appease anybody. I'm trying to limit the damage. The choices are murky because war is an uncertain business. But once you are in war, morality is pretty much measured in the cold mathmatics of body counts--what course of action will end the fighting sooner? What course of action will produce the smallest numbers of dead?

My argument is based not on "losing face" but on taking a course of action that will ensure that the flaky course of action started by Bush is not compounded by an equally flaky sudden pull-out. I see the choice essentially as a choice between another two years of occupation with another 2000 American and 10,000 Iraqi dead on the one hand, and on the other hand a sudden pull out with full scale chaos, ongoing civil war and civil strife, and the possibility of aggressive neo-fascists arising to threaten their neighbors, leading to deaths in the tens or hundreds of thousands.

Do our options suck? Hell yes. The option you advocate sucks more, risks more, and in the end aspires to accomplish much less. In the end we may have to just plain old bug out. To do so now would confirm for the world that we are a people who make tremendous messes and then refuse to clean them up. That's not how the world's superpower should act.


I have one response. F*** your appeasement!

Oh, you're a class act partner. Your simple formulations and disregard for peace and human life may make you feel holier than the neocons who started this mess. But being better than Cheney, Rumsfeld, and Wolfowitz is not exactly setting the bar very high, is it? Sadly, your ability to argue seems to be on the same level as Dick Cheney as well.

[DrWeird]

63. Yes. Everything will be better now.

Let's face it. We HAD to reelect Bush. If Kerry had been president the terrorists would have attacked again.

:eyes:

[harpo]

70. they don't have to go to fallujah...patience is a virtue isn't it?

[bvar22]

71. You are succumbing to TUNNELVISION and forgetting...

lessons written in blood in Viet Nam.

We can flatten Fallujah and achieve some temporary tactical victory that will be lost in a few weeks. This will change NOTHING on the strategic or political level, except make things worse.
This is a LOSE-LOSE situation.

The only WIN for us would be to walk awaylike we were eventually forced to do in VNam, and the French were forced to do in Algeria.

[underpants]

72. But that isn't going to happen

Yes that is the best way but that isn't going to happen. I tried to allude to that is the first post. Given the situation that they have gotten our soldiers and marines into going into Fallujah is the only reasonable thing to do. Like I said I don't like it but I am just stating the obvious here.

[bvar22]

77. "the only reasonable thing to do"

A massacre is NEVER a reasonable thing to do.

[Bucky]

87. There is a viable de-colonization model: the Philippines

It was far from perfect, but the Americans eventually got smart and put in more effort at winning over the people than at bombing the insurgents. It's worth a look at the history to see how that worked. There's also the examples of occupied Germany and Italy (Japan is a bad example because they, as a people, pretty much wanted to conform).

There's no easy answers. Just walking away would be destablizing in and of itself--not just in Iraq, but all over the world where the US is depended upon to maintain peace and stability. If we are seen as flaky and undependable, that encourages the extremists of the world who seek to benefit from the chaos created by us flaking out. In Israel, in the Philippines, in south Asia where the US is the key player in keeping India and Pakistan at arm's length, in Korea where we are working to contain a nutcase with nukes...

When the US is seen as an undependable cut-&-runner, you can count on there being war and bloodshed.

[bvar22]

97. Philippines a bad example!

There are still insurgents in the Philippines. The USA did manage to kill and intimidate enough of the population to make a large area safe for American Corporations to do business. We also had to install a ruthless dictator to keep the people in their place.

The USA recent departure has allowed the first glimmers of Democracy to emerge.

[Bucky]

102. Not a perfect example, but don't undersell Filipino democracy

The Philippines were a functional democracy from 1948 until the early 70s when Ferdinando Marcos refused to leave office as his term limits demanded. It was a troubled third world democracy, but managed to stay afloat as a real democracy for a couple of decades. During that time the people established enough of a democratic tradition to reestablish and maintain a working democracy when Marcos was ousted in the 1980s.

But the period I was referring to was actually our repression of the Filipino insurgency at the turn of the century. It was a brutal, bloody mess in the jungle there, but the Americans worked as hard to earn the respect of the local populations as they did to crush the guerillas. Part of the success also lay in the fact that they made it clear eventually that the US would leave. Mr. Bush is purposely trying not to give any Iraqis that impression today.

[m berst]

73. "...or what ever you want to call them."

I want to call them human beings.

[manic expression]

81. That is wrong. Period.

They do not have to go into Falluja. AT ALL. Falluja is under self-government by the traditional rulers. There is no reason whatsoever to do this. It will only end up killing so many more innocent people. Do not fall for the propaganda that Zarqawi and his minions are hiding in Falluja. That is a lie. It is only a lame excuse to kill more people, to impose our "rule". Iraq would be infinitely better off if we left Falluja alone.
P.S. You are wrong.

[Bush was AWOL]

82. LOL. Yes the goal is to kill more innocent people

Think about what you're saying.

[manic expression]

89. OK...Thinking....

And yet, what I said was not that the GOAL would be to kill more innocent people, but the RESULT would be the killing of more innocent people.... Which is correct.
Go Comprehension! (Sarcasm)

[Bush was AWOL]

83. I completely agree

I saw this coming months ago.

We shouldn't even be there, but now that we are, if we want to achieve any kind of success, we must clean out this terrorist/insurgent infested city.

It sounds awful but at this point it's the only option.

[Laelth]

88. Why?

"we must clean out this terrorist/insurgent infested city.

It sounds awful but at this point it's the only option."

Why must we clean it out like it's infested with rats? Why? Why can't we just walk away and leave them alone? Why is extermination the "only option"? Is it the final solution?

Please. With all due respect, let's be a little more respectful of human life.

No offense intended. :toast:

-Laelth

[Bush was AWOL]

91. You think these guys are going to peacefully go home if we leave?

There will be a battle (perhaps civil war) for power if we leave immediately.

I know it sounds nice to say"bring the troops home", but this our mess. We must clean it up.

What other way do you suggest we do that?

I'm thinking some of these guys in Falluja don't want to negotiate.

[manic expression]

93. I'm thinking

that you're wrong. Leveling a city and massacring countless numbers of innocents is not the best way to "clean it up". Are you so delusional to think that we will actually root out the resistance? All we can do is create a bloodbath which will embolden the rest of the country against us.
I suggest that we leave Falluja the F**k alone. There are no terrorist cells directing their 'evil' activities throughout the country. That is false. Considering the circumstances, there is not too much wrong leaving Falluja under self-government.

[TheKingfish]

95. This is the kind of thinking that got us there in the first place

Turn the place over to Sistani and get the fuck out. The longer we stay the worse it gets.

[rockydem]

98. dupe

[rockydem]

99. I agree - even if Kerry won it would have happened

I opposed the Iraq war because I was skeptical of the WMD claims and because I feared it would turn into a quick sand where the more we struggled the deeper we sank. I fear that is happening; I hope it isn't.

But we are there now - our only slim hope is to try and get it as stable as we can and then leave. However, I also think the Bush Administration is incompetent and will make innumerable mistakes that will jeapardize this goal of a stable Iraq. I also doubt their intentions to get out of Iraq.

But that being said: this battle would have happened no matter what. It's fucked up situation. I fear the worst.

The mistake was invading in the first place.

[fishnfla]

100. Couldn't we use more coalition troops?

I mean, what about Poland? you are saying that you knew it would come to this. Didnt some other countries and their leaders come to this same conclusion? Didnt our president lie and say he would go to war as a last resort? Didnt they fuck up the Fallujah situation once already?