US Uses Napalm in Fallujah!

[maluckey]

Unfortunately, not only is it true that Fallujah was a sucessful operation (military-wise), but the caualty rate was also the lowest as far as enemy/friendly soldier likely ever seen. American forces lost virtually nothing in comparison to the losses of he enemy.

Arguments that soldiers blasted civilians left and right are baseless, and mostly sensationalist propaganda. Civilians were given EVERY opportunity to leave, and ROE was strict. Mistakes happen, as do fratricides.

War is messy and imperfect. Until we on this forum can find a better way, Fallujah will stand as an excellent example of what to do, and how to do it.

 

[BBond]

Originally posted by: maluckey
Unfortunately, not only is it true that Fallujah was a sucessful operation (military-wise), but the caualty rate was also the lowest as far as enemy/friendly soldier likely ever seen. American forces lost virtually nothing in comparison to the losses of he enemy.

Arguments that soldiers blasted civilians left and right are baseless, and mostly sensationalist propaganda. Civilians were given EVERY opportunity to leave, and ROE was strict. Mistakes happen, as do fratricides.

War is messy and imperfect. Until we on this forum can find a better way, Fallujah will stand as an excellent example of what to do, and how to do it.

Apparently you haven't taken the time to read this entire thread. I realize it's quite long by now but there is a story posted which clearly states "military aged males" were NOT allowed to leave Fallujah and many families did not have the means to leave.

Also the number of U.S. troops killed in the massacre may be "virtually nothing" but I'd be willing to bet the families of the over 40 soldiers who died there and the hundreds wounded would disagree with your characterization of U.S. losses.

That the American military can destroy a city like Fallujah should come as no surprise to anyone. Crowing about accomplishing the ordinary isn't winning us any converts in Iraq.

War is messy and imperfect. Civilians die. That's why you don't wage war against non-threatening nations, particularly when the justification for your unprovoked attack is based on lies. That's why war is always the last resort, not the first. And that's why Fallujah -- and Bush's entire Iraq invasion -- is a disgrace to America in the eyes of the world. Not the "excellent example" you so arrogantly suggest.

Would you be offended if Osama bin Laden characterized 9/11 as an "excellent example" of guerilla warfare?

Think of how Fallujans must feel when they hear westerners refer to to the destruction of their city as such.

 

[maluckey]

Originally posted by: BBond
[Apparently you haven't taken the time to read this entire thread. I realize it's quite long by now but there is a story posted which clearly states "military aged males" were NOT allowed to leave Fallujah and many families did not have the means to leave.

Also the number of U.S. troops killed in the massacre may be "virtually nothing" but I'd be willing to bet the families of the over 40 soldiers who died there and the hundreds wounded would disagree with your characterization of U.S. losses.

That the American military can destroy a city like Fallujah should come as no surprise to anyone. Crowing about accomplishing the ordinary isn't winning us any converts in Iraq.

War is messy and imperfect. Civilians die. That's why you don't wage war against non-threatening nations, particularly when the justification for your unprovoked attack is based on lies. That's why war is always the last resort, not the first. And that's why Fallujah -- and Bush's entire Iraq invasion -- is a disgrace to America in the eyes of the world. Not the "excellent example" you so arrogantly suggest.

Would you be offended if Osama bin Laden characterized 9/11 as an "excellent example" of guerilla warfare?

Think of how Fallujans must feel when they hear westerners refer to to the destruction of their city as such.

You see, you CAN speak intelligently!!

The issue here is that nobody has ANY proof the the U.S. banned adult males from leaving the city. NONE.

As far as understanding war??? I'm currently a SOCOM Soldier, and before that, a 19D/D3. I do understand how war works. Bin Laden was very succcesful at his tasking. I freely admit it. Does it matter how I feel about it? Not one bit. Should it matter how you feel about it? NO. The United States was attacked, we reacted. That's war.

As far as Iraq...They were in direct violation of a peace treaty. End of story. We legally had the right to begin carpet bombing years ago. I would have attacked with the explanation that Saddam was an ass, and needed to be dealt with. I never would have hid behind stupid claims, but that's just me.

The war was not based on lies, or anything else. Saddam was an ass, and violated a peace treaty so many times it wasn't even funny. Bush was stupid in his non-belief in the hearts of Americans. That was his failure. Trust in your own people to understand, not try to manipulate them is the way.

 

[BBond]

Originally posted by: maluckey

Originally posted by: BBond
[Apparently you haven't taken the time to read this entire thread. I realize it's quite long by now but there is a story posted which clearly states "military aged males" were NOT allowed to leave Fallujah and many families did not have the means to leave.

Also the number of U.S. troops killed in the massacre may be "virtually nothing" but I'd be willing to bet the families of the over 40 soldiers who died there and the hundreds wounded would disagree with your characterization of U.S. losses.

That the American military can destroy a city like Fallujah should come as no surprise to anyone. Crowing about accomplishing the ordinary isn't winning us any converts in Iraq.

War is messy and imperfect. Civilians die. That's why you don't wage war against non-threatening nations, particularly when the justification for your unprovoked attack is based on lies. That's why war is always the last resort, not the first. And that's why Fallujah -- and Bush's entire Iraq invasion -- is a disgrace to America in the eyes of the world. Not the "excellent example" you so arrogantly suggest.

Would you be offended if Osama bin Laden characterized 9/11 as an "excellent example" of guerilla warfare?

Think of how Fallujans must feel when they hear westerners refer to to the destruction of their city as such.

You see, you CAN speak intelligently!!

The issue here is that nobody has ANY proof the the U.S. banned adult males from leaving the city. NONE.

As far as understanding war??? I'm currently a SOCOM Soldier, and before that, a 19D/D3. I do understand how war works. Bin Laden was very succcesful at his tasking. I freely admit it. Does it matter how I feel about it? Not one bit. Should it matter how you feel about it? NO. The United States was attacked, we reacted. That's war.

As far as Iraq...They were in direct violation of a peace treaty. End of story. We legally had the right to begin carpet bombing years ago. I would have attacked with the explanation that Saddam was an ass, and needed to be dealt with. I never would have hid behind stupid claims, but that's just me.

The war was not based on lies, or anything else. Saddam was an ass, and violated a peace treaty so many times it wasn't even funny. Bush was stupid in his non-belief in the hearts of Americans. That was his failure. Trust in your own people to understand, not try to manipulate them is the way.

There are articles in this thread on U.S. forces turning back males between the age of 15 and 60 who tried to leave Fallujah before the attack began. You can read about it at this account from ABC News.

Or you can use Google.

GIs Force Men Fleeing Fallujah to Return

NEAR FALLUJAH, Iraq Nov 12, 2004 ? Hundreds of men trying to flee the assault on Fallujah have been turned back by U.S. troops following orders to allow only women, children and the elderly to leave.

The military says it has received reports warning that insurgents will drop their weapons and mingle with refugees to avoid being killed or captured by advancing American troops.

As it believes many of Fallujah's men are guerrilla fighters, it has instructed U.S. troops to turn back all males aged 15 to 55.

"We assume they'll go home and just wait out the storm or find a place that's safe," one 1st Cavalry Division officer, who declined to be named, said Thursday.
Top Stories

Army Col. Michael Formica, who leads forces isolating Fallujah, admits the rule sounds "callous." But he insists it's is key to the mission's success.

"Tell them 'Stay in your houses, stay away from windows and stay off the roof and you'll live through Fallujah,'" Formica, of the 1st Cavalry Division's 2nd Brigade, told his battalion commanders in a radio conference call Wednesday night.

Next, please explain what bin Laden's attack had to do with Fallujah or Iraq. Every commission and every intelligence report refutes any connection between Iraq and 9/11 so please, for the last time, stop trying to justify Bush's unprovoked invasion by saying the U.S. was attacked. Iraq did not attack the U.S. They U.S. attacked Iraq -- and for no reason whatsoever. No threat. No connection to terrorists. No WMD. Nothing.

Also, the Bush administration went to the UN Security Council for another resolution approving war with Iraq and was rebuffed. They knew their invasion was illegal right from the start.

Blair releases secret Iraq memo

Under pressure ahead of British general elections on 5 May, Prime Minister Tony Blair on Thursday released a secret memo that had warned of the legal consequences of joining the US-led invasion of Iraq without a second UN resolution.

Blair had previously refused to release the memo, written by Attorney-General Lord Goldsmith on 7 March 2003, until campaign pressure began to mount in recent days over the prime minister?s decision to invade Iraq.

The 13-page memo Goldsmith gave to Blair warned that it would be safer to go to war with a second resolution from the UN Security Council authorizing military action. But 10 days later, Goldsmith issued a new memo saying the war would be legal without a second resolution. The document stated that "pre-emptive" strikes and military operations to enforce "regime change" were not admissible under international law.

Finally, Bush is an ass in the eyes of most of the world. Does that give anyone the right to depose him?

Bush lied to justify attacking Iraq. An unprovoked attack against a non-threatening nation. That, considering the consequences we continue to deal with, was not only illegal but immoral as well.

WTFU

 

[maluckey]

According to your quote above, the policy was a typical military strategy of "Stay in Place". That policy is very successful. It is not just for males, but for ALL, non-critical civilian movement. That means that nobody without a specific need to go should go. It is what we normally do in wartime. To keep everyone in-place avoids the majority of DC's (Displaced Civilians), and avoids having to set up camps to hold them. These camps are a necessary evil at times, but are avoided because of the unrest that they can cause. It is a force multiplier, and is enhanced by CA and Psyop participation to get the message out to the masses. In a media blitz before the operation, civilians were told to stay put to avoid being targeted as unfriendly. They were also told to surrender weapons, and to cooperate with the U.S. led forces. Strict curfews were put in place, and the city was then sealed. Good SOP. Great results.

Once again, there is NO proof that the U.S. held ALL males in Fallujah. It suggests that we suspended all non-critical movement. It is United States policy, as well as the Policy of all NATO forces. The Russians and the former Warsaw Pact forces also utilized this method for crowd control, and to alleviate unnecessary civilian movement.

As far as Bin-Laden, you brought him up. He has nothing to do with Fallujah. You inquired as to my FEELINGS about his effectiveness.

I don't normally have strong feelings about war, other than to minimize it's impact on the United States. That's what soldiers do.

I reread the thread (tedious) and found not one instance of the United States doing anything amiss.

 

[BBond]

You are simply being ridiculous now. The U.S. military told everyone in Fallujah they were coming in to "weed out" the "insurgents" and if they didn't want to be "weeded" they'd best get the hell out. Then they turned back every male between the age of 15 to 55.

Read the links. In their own words.

Hundreds of men trying to flee the assault on Fallujah have been turned back by U.S. troops following orders to allow only women, children and the elderly to leave.

The military says it has received reports warning that insurgents will drop their weapons and mingle with refugees to avoid being killed or captured by advancing American troops.

As it believes many of Fallujah's men are guerrilla fighters, it has instructed U.S. troops to turn back all males aged 15 to 55.

"We assume they'll go home and just wait out the storm or find a place that's safe," one 1st Cavalry Division officer, who declined to be named, said Thursday.
Top Stories

Army Col. Michael Formica, who leads forces isolating Fallujah, admits the rule sounds "callous." But he insists it's is key to the mission's success.

"Tell them 'Stay in your houses, stay away from windows and stay off the roof and you'll live through Fallujah,'" Formica, of the 1st Cavalry Division's 2nd Brigade, told his battalion commanders in a radio conference call Wednesday night.

Your inability to recognize "anything amiss" does not diminish the carnage the Bush administration has carried out in Fallujah and in all of Iraq.

 

[judasmachine]

Originally posted by: BBond
You are simply being ridiculous now. The U.S. military told everyone in Fallujah they were coming in to "weed out" the "insurgents" and if they didn't want to be "weeded" they'd best get the hell out. Then they turned back every male between the age of 15 to 55.

Read the links. In their own words.

Hundreds of men trying to flee the assault on Fallujah have been turned back by U.S. troops following orders to allow only women, children and the elderly to leave.

The military says it has received reports warning that insurgents will drop their weapons and mingle with refugees to avoid being killed or captured by advancing American troops.

As it believes many of Fallujah's men are guerrilla fighters, it has instructed U.S. troops to turn back all males aged 15 to 55.

"We assume they'll go home and just wait out the storm or find a place that's safe," one 1st Cavalry Division officer, who declined to be named, said Thursday.
Top Stories

Army Col. Michael Formica, who leads forces isolating Fallujah, admits the rule sounds "callous." But he insists it's is key to the mission's success.

"Tell them 'Stay in your houses, stay away from windows and stay off the roof and you'll live through Fallujah,'" Formica, of the 1st Cavalry Division's 2nd Brigade, told his battalion commanders in a radio conference call Wednesday night.

Your inability to recognize "anything amiss" does not diminish the carnage the Bush administration has carried out in Fallujah and in all of Iraq.

The nationalist does not disapprove of atrocities committed by his own side, he has a remarkable ability to now even hear of them.--George Orwell

(I prolly butchered the quote but that is what I remember, and the sentiment is the same.)

 

[BBond]

I found this, Judasmachine.

"The nationalist not only does not disapprove of atrocities committed by his own side, but he has a remarkable capacity for not even hearing about them."

--George Orwell, "Notes on Nationalism," 1945

Yes, the sentiment is the same and quite timely 60 years on.

 

[dphantom]

Originally posted by: BBond
You are simply being ridiculous now. The U.S. military told everyone in Fallujah they were coming in to "weed out" the "insurgents" and if they didn't want to be "weeded" they'd best get the hell out. Then they turned back every male between the age of 15 to 55.

Read the links. In their own words.

Hundreds of men trying to flee the assault on Fallujah have been turned back by U.S. troops following orders to allow only women, children and the elderly to leave.

The military says it has received reports warning that insurgents will drop their weapons and mingle with refugees to avoid being killed or captured by advancing American troops.

As it believes many of Fallujah's men are guerrilla fighters, it has instructed U.S. troops to turn back all males aged 15 to 55.

"We assume they'll go home and just wait out the storm or find a place that's safe," one 1st Cavalry Division officer, who declined to be named, said Thursday.
Top Stories

Army Col. Michael Formica, who leads forces isolating Fallujah, admits the rule sounds "callous." But he insists it's is key to the mission's success.

"Tell them 'Stay in your houses, stay away from windows and stay off the roof and you'll live through Fallujah,'" Formica, of the 1st Cavalry Division's 2nd Brigade, told his battalion commanders in a radio conference call Wednesday night.

Your inability to recognize "anything amiss" does not diminish the carnage the Bush administration has carried out in Fallujah and in all of Iraq.

It's hard to recognize that something is amiss when nothing is. Of course, you can always make up stuff that is amiss to meet your preconceived fallacious ideas.

Your use of carnage is as usual inaccurate. Please review the dictionary definitions below.

Carnage - Massive slaughter, as in war; a massacre.
Massacre - The act or an instance of killing a large number of humans indiscriminately and cruelly

In Fallujah as elsewhere in Iraq or any other modern US war, US troops do not indiscriminatley kill. The US/terrorist kill ratio in Fallujah was huge, something like 40-1, but when terrorists are battling highly trained, superbly equipped and led troops that are also highly educated, intellignet and disciplined, then the outcome will rarely be in doubt.

The purpose of war is to destroy the enemy. War is inherently a political decision and is another tool in the art of diplomacy. Diplomacy, in broad terms, the convincing of another nation-state to your terms or some reasonable compromise. If diplomacy comes to war, then there may be no compromise ala WWII or a compromise ala Korea/Vietnam.

All war is cruel and many people do not agree to war in any manner. However, when we are discussing a specific incident like Fallujah, then in the context of war, it was a text-book case of urban warfare with remarkably light casualties for the US and gratifyingly heavy casualties for the terrorists.

And before you go on another rant about the "light" US casualties and telling that to their families, that is what my wife does and quite frankly, the family is always proud of what their son or daughter, wife or husband, has done and while heartbroken over the loss, know that their family member life was given in a casue that person believed in deeply.

 

[BBond]

You may continue to ignore the truth. That's your prerogative. But please don't try to convince me to join you in your fantasy world.

You and others have attempted to refute the carnage America visited on Fallujah . This thread contains more than enough information to prove your version of events dead wrong, if you'll only take time to read it.

And please stop with the explanations of what war is. Americans know what war is. You're only making Bush look worse for entering into this unprovoked massacre in the first place.

 

[dphantom]

Originally posted by: BBond
You may continue to ignore the truth. That's your prerogative. But please don't try to convince me to join you in your fantasy world.

You and others have attempted to refute the carnage America visited on Fallujah . This thread contains more than enough information to prove your version of events dead wrong, if you'll only take time to read it.

And please stop with the explanations of what war is. Americans know what war is. You're only making Bush look worse for entering into this unprovoked massacre in the first place.

I am not trying to convince you. But I do wish you would take time to review the dictionary to ensure you use the correct words to make your argument. When you throw words around like massacre, then I can flat out state US troops do not massacre as a matter of policy.

Have there been massacres - yes. Are they sanctioned - absolutely not. Fallujah was not a massacre, unless you're on the side of the terrorists. In that case, the terrorists were slaughtered in their own eyes. So, is that who you support, or do you support the US ex President Bush????

You also do a good job of ignoring factual statements like mine above and others. I and my wife have talked to families grieving over their loss. Have you????

And btw, I have read the entire thread. And posted 10 times.

 

[BBond]

Then you choose to ignore what you've read. We have nothing more to discuss.

 

[dphantom]

Originally posted by: BBond
Then you choose to ignore what you've read. We have nothing more to discuss.

Like others of your ilk, you melt under the light of close examination. You and your buddies can continue to self congratulate each other then. You may want to end this thread then to avoid further embarrasment.

Have a nice life with your head in the sand.

 

[BBond]

The U.S. offensive was really worth it. Cleaned Fallujah right out.

New government seen as threat in Fallujah

US Marines flattened much of Fallujah in November in an assault that killed or captured scores of guerrillas and destroyed a nerve centre of the insurgency.

...

US and Iraqi officials had hoped capturing Fallujah would break the back of the Sunni-led insurgency and encourage Sunnis to join the political process and take part in the elections.

But residents fear the makeup of the government will only aggravate sectarian tensions and possibly bring bloodshed back to the streets of Fallujah.

And what do you know?

Explosions rock Fallujah, Baghdad

Saturday, April 30, 2005 (Baghdad):

A series of explosions rocked Fallujah and the Iraqi capital Baghdad on Saturday as insurgents targeted US and Iraqi forces.

Mortar rounds landed in one of Fallujah's residential Baath neighbourhoods, killing a young child and injuring 10 other civilians, witnesses and hospital officials said.

The motive behind the mortars shells was not immediately known, and the scene at Fallujah General Hospital was chaotic.

Meanwhile in Baghdad, there were at least two explosions in the west of the city.

Three killed in Fallujah gunfire

At least three Iraqi civilians were killed and three more were wounded on Thursday after US soldiers opened fire near a house in the Iraqi city of Fallujah.

The Arabic satellite network Al Jazeera reported US soldiers were firing at taxi cabs parked in front of a house, although the motive for the shooting was not known.

Witnesses said a family was sitting outside the house at the time of the shooting.

Later at a funeral procession for one of the people killed, people chanted anti-US slogans as they marched through the streets.

US forces attempted to flush out insurgents who controlled Fallujah just before the January 30 elections.

The shooting comes as Iraq's interim National Assembly approved a Cabinet lineup after nearly three months of political wrangling, laying the groundwork for the first elected government since Saddam Hussein was ousted to take power. (AP)

Does anyone think it matters to people whether they're being murdered by "insurgents" or "liberators"?

 

[dphantom]

All right, let's change the subject and try again.

Let's see, terrorists lobbed some mortar rounds in to a Baath neighborhood killing who - civilians, deliberately. Now why would they do that since the Baathists were the ones in power and are overwhelming Sunni?? Could it be that the populace actually supports the new Iraqi government and terrorists doing what they do best are attempting to terrorize the populace into their own viewpoint instead of bringing their agenda through in a peaceful political manner?

Or will you give up on this one too??

 

[BBond]

I'm certain terrorists as you call them (and they very well may be but I'll remind you that U.S. forces found fewer that five percent non-Iraqis in Fallujah) will do anything the can to incite chaos in Iraq. But I don't remember anyone destroying a reported seventy percent of Fallujah until Alawi "asked" the Americans to.

My point in posting news about "insurgents" and U.S. troops killing people in Fallujah is this; the people getting killed in large part are innocent civilians. And until Bush created an excuse to attack Iraq American troops weren't killing civilians in Fallujah. This full scale assault on Fallujah was supposed to break the back of the "insurgency" but it hasn't. Military action is never going to because the fuel for the insurgency is the occupation itself. So Iraqi civilians and U.S. soldiers will continue to pay the price for Bush's outright lies.

I just have one question. Was it worth it?

 

[maluckey]

BBond

I repeat myself, but you yourself seem without knowledge of proper military operations, and are parroting whatever favorite news source that you have, so long as it agrees with your ininformed viewpoint.

There was no massacre (unless you are a terrorist). There was no carnage (same). The procedures used by the United States are approved by the United States, NATO, and yes, even the United Nations to alleviate civilian casualties. The United States did not now, or ever encourage non-critical civilians to leave ANY population center. It is against United States policy, and would have a commander in hot water up to his eyeballs. What commander wants DC'S? I know of not one....DC's sap resources, money, time, and forces to protect them. It's easier by far to hold in place, all civilians.

All links have indicated proper procedures, except for a few reporters that either have no knowledge of the military, or no understanding of what was said to them.

It is easy to look up the policy of the United States in reference to DC's. It is public record, and also in compliance with all applicable parts of the Geneva Convention (of which the United States is a signatory country).

Continuing to regurgitate that which you have no knowledge of, shows a distict lack of caring, or research on the subject matter at hand.

First read the Geneva Convention guides to DC's, then Check out the policies of the United States, and see if you can find a difference.......You can't. Next come back and discuss ways to avoid civilian casualties in war. I would enjoy an intellectual discussion on this. It is my current profession.

 

[BBond]

Originally posted by: maluckey
BBond

I repeat myself, but you yourself seem without knowledge of proper military operations, and are parroting whatever favorite news source that you have, so long as it agrees with your ininformed viewpoint.

There was no massacre (unless you are a terrorist). There was no carnage (same). The procedures used by the United States are approved by the United States, NATO, and yes, even the United Nations to alleviate civilian casualties. The United States did not now, or ever encourage non-critical civilians to leave ANY population center. It is against United States policy, and would have a commander in hot water up to his eyeballs. What commander wants DC'S? I know of not one....DC's sap resources, money, time, and forces to protect them. It's easier by far to hold in place, all civilians.

All links have indicated proper procedures, except for a few reporters that either have no knowledge of the military, or no understanding of what was said to them.

It is easy to look up the policy of the United States in reference to DC's. It is public record, and also in compliance with all applicable parts of the Geneva Convention (of which the United States is a signatory country).

Continuing to regurgitate that which you have no knowledge of, shows a distict lack of caring, or research on the subject matter at hand.

First read the Geneva Convention guides to DC's, then Check out the policies of the United States, and see if you can find a difference.......You can't. Next come back and discuss ways to avoid civilian casualties in war. I would enjoy an intellectual discussion on this. It is my current profession.

You don't seem to be doing a very good job of it.

Ways to avoid civilian casualties in war:

Number 1:

Don't concoct reasons for unprovoked attacks against non-aggressor nations.

 

[dphantom]

Originally posted by: BBond
I'm certain terrorists as you call them (and they very well may be but I'll remind you that U.S. forces found fewer that five percent non-Iraqis in Fallujah) will do anything the can to incite chaos in Iraq. But I don't remember anyone destroying a reported seventy percent of Fallujah until Alawi "asked" the Americans to.

My point in posting news about "insurgents" and U.S. troops killing people in Fallujah is this; the people getting killed in large part are innocent civilians. And until Bush created an excuse to attack Iraq American troops weren't killing civilians in Fallujah. This full scale assault on Fallujah was supposed to break the back of the "insurgency" but it hasn't. Military action is never going to because the fuel for the insurgency is the occupation itself. So Iraqi civilians and U.S. soldiers will continue to pay the price for Bush's outright lies.

I just have one question. Was it worth it?

Terrorists do not have to be foreign. The US has its share of domestic terrorists such as ELF. Iraqi's have their own supplemented by foreigners, primarily according to reports Saudi and Ymeni nationals.

Yes, civilains are largely the ones getting killed becasue terrorists find that to be the easiest target. Just like the World Trade Center, its very easy to kill large numbers of unprotected civilians.

Anytime terrorists have gone up against US troops, they have suffered heavy casualties.

The US will not solve the insurgency problem. Only the native people can do so if they have the will. What I am seeing is encouraging. Iraqi troops and police are slowly (to slowly) taking over more areas of the urban and rural landscape. As they grow in size and experience, this insurgency will be stamped out.

But just like crime, no neighborhood will ever be 100% secuer against would be robbers. The asme as Fallujah or any other city in Iraq. Infilitration into urban areas is always possible. The point of Fallujah was to break a flagrant center of resistance to the new Iraqi gobvernment.

For Iraq to have a legitimate government, such a bold, outright terrorist controlled sanctuary had to be broken. And it was. Safe Havens are much harder to come by now. Witness the very near capture of Zarquawi just a few days ago. He is forced to constantly move. Such movemnet makes it more difficult to plan terrorist acts though certainly not impossible.

The Iraqi's will solve this problem. With US help, we will see a viable democartic type government grow.

So is it worth it?? Absolutely anytime we can free a people from tyranny. That is why we faught the Revolutionary War; to free ourselves from the tyranny of King George. Even then, less than 40% of the colonists were in support of the Revolution. At least a third actively supported the Crown. The rest stayed on the sidelines.

Did that make the Revolution wrong. Not at all. Just because a few Iraqi's want us out does not mean the rest do or we should.

So yes, it is very much worth it. A couple quotes from the past.

"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants. ... God forbid we should ever be twenty years without such a rebellion; what country can preserve its liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms." -- Thomas Jefferson to William Stephens Smith, 1787

"War is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things. The decayed and degraded state of moral and patriotic feeling that thinks that nothing is worth war is much worse. The person who has nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing which is more important than his own personal safety, is a miserable creature and has no chance of being free unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself." -- John Stuart Mill

 

[dphantom]

Originally posted by: BBond

Originally posted by: maluckey
BBond

I repeat myself, but you yourself seem without knowledge of proper military operations, and are parroting whatever favorite news source that you have, so long as it agrees with your ininformed viewpoint.

There was no massacre (unless you are a terrorist). There was no carnage (same). The procedures used by the United States are approved by the United States, NATO, and yes, even the United Nations to alleviate civilian casualties. The United States did not now, or ever encourage non-critical civilians to leave ANY population center. It is against United States policy, and would have a commander in hot water up to his eyeballs. What commander wants DC'S? I know of not one....DC's sap resources, money, time, and forces to protect them. It's easier by far to hold in place, all civilians.

All links have indicated proper procedures, except for a few reporters that either have no knowledge of the military, or no understanding of what was said to them.

It is easy to look up the policy of the United States in reference to DC's. It is public record, and also in compliance with all applicable parts of the Geneva Convention (of which the United States is a signatory country).

Continuing to regurgitate that which you have no knowledge of, shows a distict lack of caring, or research on the subject matter at hand.

First read the Geneva Convention guides to DC's, then Check out the policies of the United States, and see if you can find a difference.......You can't. Next come back and discuss ways to avoid civilian casualties in war. I would enjoy an intellectual discussion on this. It is my current profession.

You don't seem to be doing a very good job of it.

Ways to avoid civilian casualties in war:

Number 1:

Don't concoct reasons for unprovoked attacks against non-aggressor nations.

You keep coming back to this idea that the war was "concoted" From President Bush #1 to Clinton to Bush #2, all STATED and supported a policy that Saddam had to be removed at some point if he did not comply with zUN sanctions. He never did, so Bush #2 forced compliance.

One of the justifications was WMD. None were found. But again, Clinton and Democrats and Republicans alike all avowed that the probablity Saddam had WMD's was highly likely based on what we now know as very faulty intelligence data.

By selectively deciding what facts to use to support your arguments really means you have no argument to support at all.

The bottom line was UN sanctions and Iraq's failure to comply.

 

[BBond]

But Bush said they had WMD in Iraq and we had to attack to counter the grave and gathering threat!

What does all this humanitarian nonsense have to do with Bush fabricating lies to justify an unprovoked attack?

And why can't you understand that there were no terrorists in Iraq before the U.S. invasion? And now there are only a small percent of foreign "terrorists" in Iraq. The rest are Iraqis. It's their country. And foreign terrorists were one of the reasons the U.S. military gave for attacking Fallujah.

More of the same manufactured excuses to carry out full scale military operations against areas with known civilian populations. And in this case an area where males between 15 and 55 were turned back into the war zone.

When you realize the entire premise for this invasion and occupation is false how can you justify any of it?

There was no need to attack Iraq because there was no threat. Now thousands of dead and mutilated and hundreds of billions of dollars later everyone seems willing to just forget the injustice that's been done and talk happy talk about how good we are to bring freedom and democracy to Iraq.

 

[BBond]

Originally posted by: dphantom

Originally posted by: BBond

Originally posted by: maluckey
BBond

I repeat myself, but you yourself seem without knowledge of proper military operations, and are parroting whatever favorite news source that you have, so long as it agrees with your ininformed viewpoint.

There was no massacre (unless you are a terrorist). There was no carnage (same). The procedures used by the United States are approved by the United States, NATO, and yes, even the United Nations to alleviate civilian casualties. The United States did not now, or ever encourage non-critical civilians to leave ANY population center. It is against United States policy, and would have a commander in hot water up to his eyeballs. What commander wants DC'S? I know of not one....DC's sap resources, money, time, and forces to protect them. It's easier by far to hold in place, all civilians.

All links have indicated proper procedures, except for a few reporters that either have no knowledge of the military, or no understanding of what was said to them.

It is easy to look up the policy of the United States in reference to DC's. It is public record, and also in compliance with all applicable parts of the Geneva Convention (of which the United States is a signatory country).

Continuing to regurgitate that which you have no knowledge of, shows a distict lack of caring, or research on the subject matter at hand.

First read the Geneva Convention guides to DC's, then Check out the policies of the United States, and see if you can find a difference.......You can't. Next come back and discuss ways to avoid civilian casualties in war. I would enjoy an intellectual discussion on this. It is my current profession.

You don't seem to be doing a very good job of it.

Ways to avoid civilian casualties in war:

Number 1:

Don't concoct reasons for unprovoked attacks against non-aggressor nations.

You keep coming back to this idea that the war was "concoted" From President Bush #1 to Clinton to Bush #2, all STATED and supported a policy that Saddam had to be removed at some point if he did not comply with zUN sanctions. He never did, so Bush #2 forced compliance.

One of the justifications was WMD. None were found. But again, Clinton and Democrats and Republicans alike all avowed that the probablity Saddam had WMD's was highly likely based on what we now know as very faulty intelligence data.

By selectively deciding what facts to use to support your arguments really means you have no argument to support at all.

The bottom line was UN sanctions and Iraq's failure to comply.

Read the recent release of documents from the UK's AG on the legality of attacking Iraq unprovoked. They needed another UN Security Council resolution. They never got it. They never had authority to attack Iraq other than the authority that comes at the barrel of a gun.

 

[dphantom]

Originally posted by: BBond
But Bush said they had WMD in Iraq and we had to attack to counter the grave and gathering threat!

What does all this humanitarian nonsense have to do with Bush fabricating lies to justify an unprovoked attack?

And why can't you understand that there were no terrorists in Iraq before the U.S. invasion? And now there are only a small percent of foreign "terrorists" in Iraq. The rest are Iraqis. It's their country. And foreign terrorists were one of the reasons the U.S. military gave for attacking Fallujah.

More of the same manufactured excuses to carry out full scale military operations against areas with known civilian populations. And in this case an area where males between 15 and 55 were turned back into the war zone.

When you realize the entire premise for this invasion and occupation is false how can you justify any of it?

There was no need to attack Iraq because there was no threat. Now thousands of dead and mutilated and hundreds of billions of dollars later everyone seems willing to just forget the injustice that's been done and talk happy talk about how good we are to bring freedom and democracy to Iraq.

I said 1 - ONE - UNO reason was WMD. The primary was to force compliance with UN sanctions. I do not see where teh premise was false. One part was wrong, WMD, but Clinton also said Iraq had WMD and posed a grave threat to the US. Bush just took action.

Most wars happen in civilian areas. Not aware of any that did not.

You have yet to refute anything I have said. Your bottom line is that teh war was wrong period and regardless of any other facts, as long as you can select the bits and pieces that support your arguament, you will always be right.

Contrast that with some of the more educated responses on this thread where some of us. like me, can acknowledge failures, inaccuracies and so forth yet put forwar a coherent argument.

Yes it is the Iraqi's country and they want our help to stabilize the country. And yes, Iraq has become a magnet, because teh terrorists know that if they can evist the US, they will have won an incredible victory, much like what TET did in the Vietnam war.

Thankfully, we have a C-in-C who will stay the course and not cut and run like the President did in Somalia after getting 18 rangers killed.

 

[BBond]

Or 241 in Beirut.

You can't excuse the carnage for a lie. It's a basic flaw that you just can't make right. And now you're witnessing the results of having a C-in-C who makes policy based on lies.

I'm really sorry I can't fathom your more educated response. I guess I'm just not smart enough, like you are, to get past the part about murdering a few thousand civilians because the C-in-C is a liar.

But that's just me.

 

[dphantom]

Originally posted by: BBond
Or 241 in Beirut.

You can't excuse the carnage for a lie. It's a basic flaw that you just can't make right. And now you're witnessing the results of having a C-in-C who makes policy based on lies.

I'm really sorry I can't fathom your more educated response. I guess I'm just not smart enough, like you are, to get past the part about murdering a few thousand civilians because the C-in-C is a liar.

But that's just me.

Well, we all have our limitations. And I was not happy about Beirut either.