# Fallouja: "Rebels?" Is there a bias in using the term "Rebels"? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [November 14, 2004, 1:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fallouja-rebels-is-there-a-bias-in-using-the-term-rebels/274698 "2004-11-14T13:50:58Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 14\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![Avenger](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/9de0a6/32.png) [@Avenger](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Avenger)\ **Post date:** [November 14, 2004, 7:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fallouja-rebels-is-there-a-bias-in-using-the-term-rebels/274698/21 "2004-11-14T19:09:18Z")
> [@](#): > > [It seems that the majority of the young Iraqi men choose to join the organized Iraqi army and fight with the Americans.They could just as easily take their gun to the local mosque and join the rebels I’m not sure that’s going to work. The Iraqi army does actually pay them which may act as an incentive. And there have, in any case, been instances of the army/police being infiltrated and of them switching sides (the police chief in Mosul was just sacked after insurgents took over parts of the city and a portion of the Police force joined them). **Red Fury** already posted a link to some stats of what people actually think. ---
**Author:** ![DanBlather](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/f4b2a3/32.png) [@DanBlather](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DanBlather)\ **Post date:** [November 14, 2004, 7:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fallouja-rebels-is-there-a-bias-in-using-the-term-rebels/274698/22 "2004-11-14T19:28:18Z")
> [@Ryan\_Liam](#): > > Anyways, tell me, have you got any better ideas, which wouldn’t culminate in a new Islamic theocracy or Taliban-esque government? Maybe if we had a weak, secularist govt, that had a no-fly zone enforced, and was being monitored for the development of WMDs? And then, how about if all the American soldiers that are being killed and wounded were back home in the USA with their loved ones. Now we just need a time machine. ---
**Author:** ![RedFury](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/ec9cab/32.png) [@RedFury](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RedFury)\ **Post date:** [November 14, 2004, 8:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fallouja-rebels-is-there-a-bias-in-using-the-term-rebels/274698/23 "2004-11-14T20:40:23Z")
> [@Ryan\_Liam](#): > > They are militant assholes. Did you know, Redfury, that not all the killed in Iraq is not the result of American firepower _shock!_ but of insrugents blowing up town centres, schools, places of work and residence, did you know that? Do you know what we’re up against there? > [@RedFury](#): > > About 100,000 Iraqi civilians - **half of them women and children** - have died in Iraq since the invasion, [\*\*mostly as a result of airstrikes by coalition forces](http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,1338749,00.html)\*\*, according to the first reliable study of the death toll from Iraqi and US public health experts. (my bolding) No doubt you’ll simply dismiss said study as it does not align with your delusions. It’s the modus operandi of all True Believers. > [@Ryan\_Liam](#): > > Anyways, tell me, have you got any better ideas, which wouldn’t culminate in a new Islamic theocracy or Taliban-esque government? Democracy = Majority rule. If that’s what Iraqis choose, who the hell are you to tell them differently? And in case you’ve forgotten, Saddam’s Iraq was a _secular_ nation – which is exactly the reason the US supported him before. Allawi, the current US backed despot, is Saddam w/out a mustache, a [\*\*bloodthirsty ex-CIA informant, despised by his own people](http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/FF02Ak01.html)\*\* > [@](#): > > \*Allawi, the founder of Iraqi National Accord (INA), is a former Ba’athist and an ex-military man. He built his career as an anti-Saddam expatriate by consistently cooperating with, and supplying intelligence to, the British MI6 and the US Central Intelligence Agency (CIA). Consequently, his nomination as prime minister is perceived, at least in Washington, as a success for the Department of State and the CIA, both of which despised Chalabi, promoted Allawi’s candidacy, and could not have been happier to see Chalabi’s fall from grace. > > According to reports filtering out of Iraq, the selection of Allawi may have been as a result of maneuverings between the members of Iraqi Governing Council (IGC) - all hand-picked by the Americans - along with back-channel participation of L Paul Bremer, the head of the Coalition Provisional Authority (CPA), and Robert Blackwill, President George W Bush’s special envoy to Iraq. As these reports indicate, Brahimi was serious about picking someone with no IGC or US connections so that the Iraqis should have little doubt about the integrity of such a prime minister. Allawi was on Brahimi’s short list of candidates for premiership, but definitely was not his first choice. - > [@Ryan\_Liam](#): > > We have to help them, its our duty, contrary to what you think, the Iraqis don’t want us to leave until we’ve helped them create a stable functioning state. More uncited secretions. Just because _you_ lay some vague claim to ‘The White Man’s Burden’ doesn’t make it so. As I’ve already **proven** to you, polls overwhelmingly favor an immediate exit of the occupying forces. Those are the facts – not the fiction you cling on to. > [@Ryan\_Liam](#): > > I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again, leaving Iraq before its ready to fend for itself is a crime, unless you actually advocate Genocide? As opposed to the total anarchy and mass murder currently in place which you openly advocate, I favor giving the Iraqis the freedom to do as they will with their nation and their resources. Hysterical cries about a possible ‘genocide’ upon your departure are nothing but hysterical cries about a possible genocide. Should the Iraqis ask for, or need help after your departure, they can do so through legal channels. That would be through the UN, since some of you unilateralist neocons seem to have completely forgotten small details such as oh…_legality_. Enjoy. ---
**Author:** ![RedFury](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/ec9cab/32.png) [@RedFury](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RedFury)\ **Post date:** [November 14, 2004, 8:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fallouja-rebels-is-there-a-bias-in-using-the-term-rebels/274698/24 "2004-11-14T20:49:35Z")
[**The American Record in Nation-Building**](http://www.ceip.org/files/Publications/2003-04-11-peipolicybrief.asp?from=pubdate) > [@](#): > > \*\*The record shows that democratic nation-building is among the most ambitious and difficult of foreign policy undertakings for the United States. Of the 16 over the past century, democracy was sustained in only 4 countries ten years after the departure of American forces. Two of these followed total defeat and surrender (in World War II) and two were in tiny countries (Grenada and Panama). The record also reveals that unilateral nation-building by the United States has an even lower success rate perhaps because unilateralism has led to the creation of surrogate regimes and direct American administration during the interim post-conflict period. The use of interim surrogate regimes has produced a record of complete failure. No American-supported surrogate regime made the transition to democracy and only one case of direct American administration (in Japan) succeeded in ushering in democracy. To heed the lessons of experience, the Bush administration should support a multilateral reconstruction strategy centered on bolstering political legitimacy and economic burden-sharing under the auspices of the United Nations. \*\* ---
**Author:** ![Kimstu](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/ecd19e/32.png) [@Kimstu](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kimstu)\ **Post date:** [November 14, 2004, 8:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fallouja-rebels-is-there-a-bias-in-using-the-term-rebels/274698/25 "2004-11-14T20:53:50Z")
**RyanLiam:** \*When did the US army ever think that they would be recieved as liberators? \* Maybe when they listened to Vice-President Cheney on [March 16, 2003](http://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/intrel/bush/cheneymeetthepress.htm)? > [@](#): > > MR. RUSSERT: If your analysis is not correct, and we’re not treated as liberators, but as conquerors, and the Iraqis begin to resist, particularly in Baghdad, do you think the American people are prepared for a long, costly, and bloody battle with significant American casualties? > > VICE PRES. CHENEY: Well, I don’t think it’s likely to unfold that way, Tim, because I really do believe that we will be greeted as liberators. I’ve talked with a lot of Iraqis in the last several months myself, had them to the White House. […] The read we get on the people of Iraq is there is no question but what they want to the get rid of Saddam Hussein and they will welcome as liberators the United States when we come to do that. ---
**Author:** ![Ryan\_Liam](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ryan_liam/32/3965_2.png) [@Ryan\_Liam](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ryan_Liam)\ **Post date:** [November 14, 2004, 9:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fallouja-rebels-is-there-a-bias-in-using-the-term-rebels/274698/26 "2004-11-14T21:21:10Z")
> [@](#): > > **Red Fury** > > No doubt you’ll simply dismiss said study as it does not align with your delusions. It’s the modus operandi of all True Believers. So the Coalition makes mistakes, am I denying this? Do I say I don’t believe it? You’re probably right with the evidence and cites you produce, doesn’t mean I don’t believe we did right thing. > [@](#): > > **Red Fury** > > Democracy = Majority rule. If that’s what Iraqis choose, who the hell are you to tell them differently? And in case you’ve forgotten, Saddam’s Iraq was a secular nation – which is exactly the reason the US supported him before. Allawi, the current US backed despot, is Saddam w/out a mustache, a bloodthirsty ex-CIA informant, despised by his own people Allawi doesn’t even come close to Saddams excesses. The US supported Saddam solely to weaken his country and the Iranians, end of story. Who says I’m against majority rule, who says I am against what they want? All I know is that saying that they want a type of government because a minority of religious nuts say so is hardly broadbased opinion. Your cites from Asia times??? The most blatantly anti occupation news paper probably on the net? Heres another article of their supposed excellent reporting. [http://atimes.com/atimes/Middle\_East/FK11Ak03.html](http://atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/FK11Ak03.html) > [@](#): > > Cluster-bomb democracy > > The Pentagon’s key primary target in Fallujah has been information: doctors in hospitals, telephone lines that people use to tell the world about the civilians’ plight. Most of the world is interpreting Fallujah through embedded, Pentagon-censored reporters and Arab television. The Pentagon line is American “heroes” on the way to “liberate” the people of Fallujah. Iraqis, Arabs, 1.3 billion Muslims, the majority of European public opinion and decent Americans won’t be fooled - again. and the Muhajadeen > [@](#): > > Apart from a maximum of 1,500 “Arab brothers” - as the Iraqis call them - from Saudi Arabia, Yemen, Jordan, Syria and Tunisia, most of the remaining mujahideen in Fallujah are nationalist Iraqis whose tribal code mandates that they defend at any cost their homes, their families and their city under foreign attack. > Compared too the report on the Muhajadeen Notice the difference, ones depicted as innocents who just want to live their lives, and another as an aggressive militatist army hell bent on killing as many people as it can. or some more > [@](#): > > Once again the US has been caught in a giant spider’s web. Fallujah now is a network: it’s Baghdad, Ramadi, Samarra, Latifiyah, Kirkuk, Mosul. Streets on fire, everywhere: Hundreds, thousands of Fallujahs - the Mesopotamian echo of a thousand Vietnams. The Iraqi resistance has even regained control of a few Baghdad neighborhoods. How impartial, how neutral. How factual. > [@](#): > > **Red Fury** > > More uncited secretions. Just because you lay some vague claim to ‘The White Man’s Burden’ doesn’t make it so. As I’ve already proven to you, polls overwhelmingly favor an immediate exit of the occupying forces. Those are the facts – not the fiction you cling on to. What the Hell? No it isn’t some liberal White guilt which makes me feel obligated to help the Iraqis, its national and Global implications if we leave and let them fend for themselves, which would be a disaster if we do not train, supply and help them enforce the rule of law around Iraq. White mans burden, are you nuts? We invaded, we help. End of story. > [@](#): > > **Red Fury** > > As opposed to the total anarchy and mass murder currently in place which you openly advocate, I favor giving the Iraqis the freedom to do as they will with their nation and their resources. Hysterical cries about a possible ‘genocide’ upon your departure are nothing but hysterical cries about a possible genocide. Should the Iraqis ask for, or need help after your departure, they can do so through legal channels. That would be through the UN, since some of you unilateralist neocons seem to have completely forgotten small details such as oh…legality. I do not advocate mass murder or anarchy, but I’m not naive to think it would of been some walk in the park, and you should think of the even worse events which would happen in the event of an early Coalition departure. You seem to think there would be an Iraqi state when we left, you’re gravely mistaken. > **[Comment: Max Hastings](https://www.theguardian.com/world/2004/oct/04/iraq.comment)** > > Max Hastings If the prime minister is serious, our troops will be there for a decade. ---
**Author:** ![Ryan\_Liam](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ryan_liam/32/3965_2.png) [@Ryan\_Liam](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ryan_Liam)\ **Post date:** [November 14, 2004, 9:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fallouja-rebels-is-there-a-bias-in-using-the-term-rebels/274698/27 "2004-11-14T21:24:13Z")
> [@Kimstu](#): > > **RyanLiam:** \*When did the US army ever think that they would be recieved as liberators? \* > > Maybe when they listened to Vice-President Cheney on [March 16, 2003](http://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/intrel/bush/cheneymeetthepress.htm)? erm, in the first stages of the war, they did. We squandered that goodwill. And anyway, I was talking about Fallujah, nice to extract my sentance and use it in a completely different context. > [@](#): > > When did the US army ever think that they would be recieved as liberators? They knew the situation and what the local populace expected of them. But we still had to sort the situation out, it was a last resort to destory a militant redoubt. See? In reference to Fallujah. ---
**Author:** ![Rune](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e68b1a/32.png) [@Rune](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Rune)\ **Post date:** [November 14, 2004, 9:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fallouja-rebels-is-there-a-bias-in-using-the-term-rebels/274698/28 "2004-11-14T21:35:00Z")
Didn’t think “rebels” had such a bad connotation to it. The rebels in Star Wars were the good guys. To me it has a more romantic edge. Like South American rebels fighting bravely against oppressive dictatorships. Perhaps you’d consider Moore’s minutemen more appropriate? Anyway. Surely we can all agree that people who abduct civilians and make demands on their release which when not immediately met decapitate the hostages on video under liberal shouting of religious absurdities are terrorists. ---
**Author:** ![Rune](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e68b1a/32.png) [@Rune](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Rune)\ **Post date:** [November 14, 2004, 10:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fallouja-rebels-is-there-a-bias-in-using-the-term-rebels/274698/29 "2004-11-14T22:22:49Z")
This one from The Washington Post is fairly hilarious: > [@](#): > > In areas controlled by U.S. forces, loudspeakers mounted on Humvees urged that “all fighters in Fallujah should surrender, and we guarantee they will not be killed or insulted.” > […] > From a loudspeaker on a mosque still controlled by insurgents, the fighters replied: “We ask the American soldiers to surrender and we guarantee that we will kill and torture them.” Isn’t there supposed to be a “not” in that last sentence somewhere? But even with that, it still speaks of the difference. One part promise not to insult, the other not to torture. [http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A48959-2004Nov14.html](http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A48959-2004Nov14.html) ---
**Author:** ![Avenger](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/9de0a6/32.png) [@Avenger](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Avenger)\ **Post date:** [November 14, 2004, 10:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fallouja-rebels-is-there-a-bias-in-using-the-term-rebels/274698/30 "2004-11-14T22:49:58Z")
> [@](#): > > In areas controlled by U.S. forces, loudspeakers mounted on Humvees urged that “all fighters in Fallujah should surrender, and we guarantee they will not be killed or insulted.” > > From a loudspeaker on a mosque still controlled by insurgents, the fighters replied: “We ask the American soldiers to surrender and we guarantee that we will kill and torture them.” Nice come back though… ---
**Author:** ![RickJay](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/bb73d2/32.png) [@RickJay](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RickJay)\ **Post date:** [November 15, 2004, 12:12am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fallouja-rebels-is-there-a-bias-in-using-the-term-rebels/274698/31 "2004-11-15T00:12:36Z")
> [@Ryan\_Liam](#): > > They don’t do it intentionally You must be joking. Exactly what the hell do you think American commanders were talking about when they spoke of using bombing attacks to install “shock and awe” in the Iraqis? **They were trying to terrorize them.** Don’t make jokes about staplers; your claim that the American did not frighten IRaqis “intentionally” was bullshit. Fear and terror is always a tactic when a strong country attempts to subdue a weak one. ---
**Author:** ![RedFury](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/ec9cab/32.png) [@RedFury](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RedFury)\ **Post date:** [November 15, 2004, 5:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fallouja-rebels-is-there-a-bias-in-using-the-term-rebels/274698/32 "2004-11-15T05:13:07Z")
> [@Ryan\_Liam](#): > > So the Coalition makes mistakes, am I denying this? Do I say I don’t believe it? You’re probably right with the evidence and cites you produce, doesn’t mean I don’t believe we did right thing. Fair enough. If you believe doing the “right thing” involves going into a war for false pretenses and outright lies. As a result of which thousands upon thousands of innocent Iraqis have died and continue to die. > [@](#): > > Allawi doesn’t even come close to Saddams excesses. The US supported Saddam solely to weaken his country and the Iranians, end of story. Nonsense. With the US’s backing had the strongest military in the MENA region – Israel excluded of course. It was only after GW-I that Iraq’s military was decapitated. The US supported Saddam for two reasons: 1-He was a _secular_, pro-American dictator, who, through his iron-fisted rule, guaranteed both the unity of that country and it’s secularity. 2-Used him as a proxy battering ram against the fundamentalist Iranian regime, with whom the US still had scores to settle. Meanwhile, with the US’s backing, Allawi has already declared martial law and backed a repressive and murderous campaign against those that would dare disagree with thier mutual agenda. > [@Ryan](#): > > Who says I’m against majority rule, who says I am against what they want? All I know is that saying that they want a type of government because a minority of religious nuts say so is hardly broadbased opinion. You do. Because if you knew even a bit of history of said country you’d also know that the Shite majoirty is overwhelmingly religious. Thus in an open election, odds are very good to great that they’ll choose someome like Sistani. And we also know that Rumsfeld said that such a result “would be discouraged.” > [@Ryan](#): > > Your cites from Asia times??? The most blatantly anti occupation news paper probably on the net? You’re welcomed to Pit each and every news source that dares stray from your blinkered worldview. Doesn’t mean they are not reputable or giving us a fair analysis. And Asia Times is most certainly a reputable news-source and not some fringe leftist organization. But while you do that, I’d like to see you _address and refute_ their commentary instead of simply attacking the source. If you’re capable that is. > [@Ryan](#): > > Heres another article of their supposed excellent reporting. > > [atimes.com](http://atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/FK11Ak03.html) > [@](#): > > Cluster-bomb democracy > > The Pentagon’s key primary target in Fallujah has been information: doctors in hospitals, telephone lines that people use to tell the world about the civilians’ plight. Most of the world is interpreting Fallujah through embedded, Pentagon-censored reporters and Arab television. The Pentagon line is American “heroes” on the way to “liberate” the people of Fallujah. Iraqis, Arabs, 1.3 billion Muslims, the majority of European public opinion and decent Americans won’t be fooled - again. > > and the Muhajadeen > > Apart from a maximum of 1,500 “Arab brothers” - as the Iraqis call them - from Saudi Arabia, Yemen, Jordan, Syria and Tunisia, most of the remaining mujahideen in Fallujah are nationalist Iraqis whose tribal code mandates that they defend at any cost their homes, their families and their city under foreign attack. > Compared too the report on the Muhajadeen Seems pretty accurate to me. And yes, very good, _honest_ reporting. If your only problem is that it differs from your ideology, best that I can tell you is that is your problem not mine. Just as the article says, you’re the one being fooled by the propaganda, not I. > [@](#): > > Notice the difference, ones depicted as innocents who just want to live their lives, and another as an aggressive militatist army hell bent on killing as many people as it can. No. It’s doesn’t say that at all. Try reading it again. And again. Eventually you should be able to discern what the article says. Hint: pretty much what I’ve already told you in my prior post. > [@RaynL](#): > > or some more > > Once again the US has been caught in a giant spider’s web. Fallujah now is a network: it’s Baghdad, Ramadi, Samarra, Latifiyah, Kirkuk, Mosul. Streets on fire, everywhere: Hundreds, thousands of Fallujahs - the Mesopotamian echo of a thousand Vietnams. The Iraqi resistance has even regained control of a few Baghdad neighborhoods. > > How impartial, how neutral. How factual. Indeed. Glad you noticed. because that is exactly what is happening in Iraq right now. Complete chaos, a war for independence but in name only. > [@Ryan](#): > > What the Hell? No it isn’t some liberal White guilt which makes me feel obligated to help the Iraqis, its national and Global implications if we leave and let them fend for themselves, which would be a disaster if we do not train, supply and help them enforce the rule of law around Iraq. White mans burden, are you nuts? We invaded, we help. End of story. “Disaster” for whom, exactly? And why the certainty? If you’re privy to some inside Manchester info on Iraq that hasn’t been made public, by all means, please share. > [@](#): > > I do not advocate mass murder or anarchy, but I’m not naive to think it would of been some walk in the park, and you should think of the even worse events which would happen in the event of an early Coalition departure. You may _say_ that you don’t, and for all I know, even believe as much. But that is exactly what is happening on the ground. Thus that is what you’re, perhaps unwittingly, advocating. > [@](#): > > You seem to think there would be an Iraqi state when we left, you’re gravely mistaken. > [@Ryan](#): > > [Guardain article](http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,,1318981,00.html) Not sure if it’s occured to you in the past, but it’s actaully a very good idea to _read_ the cites one provides. Because if you had, you might have noticed that whole article does nothing but strenghten my argument and poke more holes into yours – if that’s still possible. There are only so many holes one can poke into Swiss cheese before it stops being cheese. From same: > [@](#): > > Thereafter matters will become much messier, the outcome hard to foresee. Tony Blair told the Labour conference last week that Britain should stick it out in Iraq “until the job is done”. If he really meant what he said, our troops would be there for a decade. **The black hole in Blair’s remarks is that he did not address what happens if, as seems overwhelmingly likely, the Iraqi people will not tolerate the coalition’s presence for a tithe of that time.** > > \ > > It is a chronic weakness of western interventions that civil follow-up to military action is inadequate or non-existent. It remains so in the Balkans and Afghanistan. US and British troops in Iraq face no danger of battlefield defeat. The insurgents have been overwhelmingly successful, however, in frustrating even such half-baked reconstruction efforts as the Pentagon has attempted. > > **The catalogue of Washington’s follies and lies is so extensive it is hard to know which to highlight first, but let us try. George Bush - and Tony Blair - persists in relating events in Iraq to al-Qaida and the war on terror, which is drivel unsupported by a shred of credible intelligence.** (my bolding) Indeed. Thank you for making my case for me. Not that I need any. Help that is. Cognitive dissonance, does the term mean anything to you? TTFN ---
**Author:** ![RedFury](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/ec9cab/32.png) [@RedFury](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RedFury)\ **Post date:** [November 15, 2004, 5:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fallouja-rebels-is-there-a-bias-in-using-the-term-rebels/274698/33 "2004-11-15T05:24:50Z")
[\*\*Wrath, Anger, and Sadness](http://www.antiwar.com/jamail/?articleid=3974)\*\* > [@](#): > > \*\*One of our stops was at the home of Dr. Wamid Omar Nathmi, a senior political scientist at Baghdad University. An older, articulate man who vehemently opposed the regime of Saddam Hussein, he is now critical of U.S. policy, which is engulfing Iraq in violence, bloodshed, and chaos. > > He told me that during the buildup to the siege of Fallujah, he had sent John Negroponte, the current so-called ambassador to Iraq, a letter that, along with several other points, asked him, “Do you think that by occupying Fallujah you will stop the resistance?” > > Of course, his letter was ignored, and now we watch in fear as the resistance spreads across Iraq like wildfire, fanned by the pounding of Fallujah. > > Dr. Nathmi added, “Certainly the U.S. military can eventually suppress Fallujah, but for how long? Iraq is burning with wrath, anger, and sadness … the people of Fallujah are dear to us. They are our brothers and sisters, and we are so saddened by what is happening in that city.” > > He asked what the difference is between what is occurring in Fallujah now and what Saddam Hussein did during his repression of the Shia Intifada that followed the '91 Gulf War. “Saddam suppressed that uprising and used less awful methods than the Americans are in Fallujah today.” > > Dr. Nathmi is a brilliant man and certainly a warehouse of informative analysis about the events in Iraq. He was quick to point out another flaw in the U.S. policy here, how the U.S. disbanded the entire Iraqi police force in Ramadi the day before the siege of Fallujah began. > > He held up his hands and asked, “Who will provide security in Ramadi now, angels?” > > “I can assure you, it is well over 75 percent of Iraqis who cannot even tolerate this occupation,” he said a little later when discussing the Bush administration’s attempts to whitewash the situation in Iraq. “The right-wing Bush administration is blinded by its ideology, and we are all suffering from this, Iraqis and soldiers alike.” \*\* ---
**Author:** ![Lissa](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/85f322/32.png) [@Lissa](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lissa)\ **Post date:** [November 15, 2004, 6:48am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fallouja-rebels-is-there-a-bias-in-using-the-term-rebels/274698/34 "2004-11-15T06:48:28Z")
> [@Ryan\_Liam](#): > > No it isn’t some liberal White guilt which makes me feel obligated to help the Iraqis, its national and Global implications if we leave and let them fend for themselves, which would be a disaster if we do not train, supply and help them enforce the rule of law around Iraq. Do you really think that there’s any way of avoiding disaster? Honestly? As gung-ho as the American people may be right now about the war, they _will_ tire of it eventually. Americans are people of short attention spans, and aren’t really all that interested in global ramifications. All they’ll care about is that tax dollars are being poured into another country and American kids are coming home in boxes. Add to this that our politicians are cowards at heart. Eventually, the tide of public opinion will be so against remaining in Iraq that politicians will have to bow to the “will of the people” (as idiotic as it may be) and bring the troops home. It’s all a matter of time. Of course, as soon as we’re gone, the puppet government will begin to collapse. There’ll probably be a civil war, which the president (whoever he may be) will be reluctant to get us involved in because Americans will be tired of war. A hard-line anti-US dictator will take power, and within twenty years of that happening, we’ll be back in Iraq wondering what the fuck happened. I really don’t see any way of avoiding this. Bush’s resolve may keep us there during his presidency, but the pendulum will swing back eventually. What about his successor? Or the president after that? One of them will eventually bow to the pressure. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fallouja-rebels-is-there-a-bias-in-using-the-term-rebels/274698.md?page=1)