What do you think is going to unfold? If the election goes off as scheduled, but with some parties boycotting it, will the new government have enough legitimacy to stave off civil war? I don’t have a clue, myself, but I expected all along that conquering Iraq was going to be much easier than ruling it.
Ryan_Liam: Very disturbing, and it would be infinitely more disturbing for the people who are actually involved. I do not believe that insurgents can maintain any sort of moral high ground (‘they took our land’, ‘they invaded us’, etc.) after turning children into combatants. Children who have no choice in the matter, who do not understand what they are being asked to die for, and do not fully understand what it means to die. (Or maybe they think they do, which is far more disturbing. One thinks of the teenage males ordered to run through minefields in the Iran-Iraq war.)
Is it really worth it to die in a battle that cannot be won? Is it worth it to die just hoping to kill an American (in this case, you can’t always take one with you)? Would it not be wiser to surrender and be disarmed? And how can someone justify sending their children to die and yet claim they are morally superior?
Now that the regime change has taken place, what can it achieve to resist the American presence? Do the insurgents believe that they can make the Americans leave? And why is it better to die than to make any effort at all to improve the quality of life in their country?
I really hope the good lady and her family get through all of this all right, A. And that someday they can live in a free and peaceful Iraq.
Well, first of all: * if* those elections can be held I shall be highly surprized.
If there is no support of the important Imams first of all and of the important tribal leaders supporting and/or following them = no visible and recognized representation of these influences, no way there shall be stability lasting longer then a second or two.
No way a “half-supported” government shall be able to stabilize the country if they don’t do it with the good old governing tool named “terror” in one or more of its various forms.
Now suppose that something of a miracle happens and they get together something that looks like a government “representing the Iraqi people” and that is not perceived as puppets of the USA. How long do you think the patience of the population with that government shall last? Do you know that roughly estimated 70% of the Iraqis are unemployed right now?
To me the only solution for Iraq is UN involvement at all levels and very directly and for this to be accepted by the majority of the population this can not be done under US lead. I don’t see that happen.
The US invaded with the aim to stay. Do you think Bush is going to change his imperialistic dreams because Iraq goes up in flames?
Salaam. A
Thank you. (She died earlier this year, but of course she was worried sick about her relatives.) Up to now it seems they managed to survive unharmed.
Salaam. A
The most recent major siege of which I’m aware was the (unsuccessful) siege of Leningrad during WWII.
Well, just saw a general type guy on PBS. He says they figure that most of the civilians have already fled, so only bad guys are left. Mostly. He’s guessing, and he knows it, but it doesn’t matter.
So they are going to do it by flat out force, 10,000 Marines. Who are advised that anyone they see is almost certainly the enemy. A whole bunch of folks are going to die, some number of them will be the enemy. We won’t know, even if they knew, they wouldn’t tell us. But it will be a glorious victory, and everything will be fine.
For now.
What if the US troops staged a pullout and left behind a great big wooden humvee that’s large enough to hold 100 elite delta troops yet still contain adequate toilet facilities…
According to the BBC news website, there are fewer than 60,000 civilians left in Falluja. I guess that mean more than 50,000? Also, on the BBC tv news tonight they said that no men under the age of 45 were going to be allowd in or out of the city, although there is no mention of that on their website as yet.
Please excuse various typo’s. :smack:
Much like when in the former regime.
Contrary to what most people think on here, at some point you got to show them who’s boss.
Something less on the scale if we pulled out.
Bye bye credibility.
The soldiers laying siege will be sitting ducks to suicide and runaway bombing by the other side.
Another major problem with a siege is that it would be a public relations disaster. It would be Ramallah writ large. Lots of time for the media to start printing stories of starving children, pregnant women who can’t get medical care, etc. It’s just not possible. It’s not humane, it’s not smart.
Oh, you needn’t worry, **Sam[b/], its going to be done by direct force. And it will be a victory. The story is already typed. Profiles of brave soldier X, valiant soldier Y, the cunning and treacherous ploys of our cowardly adversaries, our moment of passing regret for the sufferings of the innocent, which we miminized to the vanishing point, despite the lies and slanders of…ah, you know the rest. It hasn’t changed in ten thousand years.
Wonder if they’ve already taken the picture of the Marine giving a Hershey bar to an Iraqi child?
You might know, but I agree with ** Aldebaran ** on the fact that many posts in many threads about the war in Irak sound very cold hearted, and though these posters might know they’re talking about people they don’t seem to really realize it, or at least don’t convey this feeling. And it eventually becomes really irritating and in some cases infuriating. Maybe watching a footage of someone agonizing during a dozen minutes should be mandatory before posting on this topic.
They don’t. They blow up whole buildings on suspicions that there might be a terrorist/freedom fighter/ennemy combattant/Iraki patriot/ foreign islamist/ whatever you want to call him staying there. I saw too many footages of children’s bodies being removed from the ruins on TV to buy the " unnecessary civilian deaths are avoided whenever possible" stance.
Your mileage may vary about what “whenever possible” and “unnecessary” mean.
A lot. Laying siege was an essential part of warfare during the 17th and 18th century, and sieges were very common duing the 19th century. Paris was besieged during the 1870 war against Prussia. The siege of Leningrad during WWII is famous.
Its all a matter of phrasing, I guess. I noticed just the other day, they were talking about how they were hitting a “known target”, I guess so I don’t worry that they are just bombing willy-nilly, no, no, these are “known targets”. But then I gotta wonder…how long has this been a known target? Did they know this was a target yesterday? The day before? And were just biding their time?
And if this just became a “known target” today, where did they get the information? We got disguised Marine target spotters in downtown Fallujah? Paid informants?
Ah, well, just a matter of phrasing. Do they still use “body count”? The nostalgia of nausea. Its Viet Nam with sand, isn’t it?
Sigh. Its hard to tell if you just don’t understand or are being deliberately dense. When I said the war was ‘done’ I meant its happened…its reality. Not that the war is OVER. Get it? As to I ‘ain’t seen nothing yet’ I figure we’ve seen as much as we are going to. I seriously doubt there will be any big surprises in Iraq. Its going to be a long hard slog with gods know what at the end.
Nothing like what a full scale civil war would be like. Which you are perfectly well aware of since you claim to be a historian. It could be a LOT worse than it is, and it WOULD be a lot worse if the US pulled out at this point. Again I ask you…is that REALLY what you want?
Why don’t you grow up some and stop with the insults? The Iraqi’s CAN’T handle the situation as it is…yet. Their military isn’t in any kind of shape to defend themselves right now, and if the US et al pulls out the country will fly appart…you know it, I know it…everyone knows it.
Yep, its the US’s fault that the situation is what it is right now…I’m not denying that in case it slipped by you (it obviously did). But get off your fucking high horse already. Not like this is the first unjust war in the world…not to mention the first unjust war in that region! Your rant is getting old Alde.
Whether you like it or not, whether you acknowledge it or not, Saddam and the Iraqi’s created the very circumstances that allowed the US its fig leaf to invade. And in the end the US didn’t NEED a fig leaf, just as other major powers through out history didn’t need such fig leaves…they did what they did because they could. One has merely to look at the history of your precious Europe to find a wealth of examples…or the history of the Middle East for that matter.
And mostly they did it in a hell of a lot more brutal of a fashion than the US did in its invasion of Iraq. I know you don’t see that, I know you don’t want to hear it, but its true. It was an unjust and unnecessary war…but then so were most of the wars fought in that region and throughout the world for the last several hundred years (or more).
I don’t give two shits where you live Alde. I just said you claim to be from that region. Again, climb off your fucking high horse…its really quite annoying sometimes.
-XT
The siege is just the first part , it allows people to leave the city and get out of harms way , then comes the assault.
Meh , what they should do is use the Marines to maintain the outer perimeter, then use B-52’s , a couple of cells and arc light the city.
Then send in the marines and soldiers for humanitarian relief efforts.
Declan