Since you’re all Einsteins, and obviously smarter than me. Any of you got a better idea?
I can picture your target spotters as John Cleese in a Monty Python skit where the RPG toting bad guys sneak from corner to corner behind his back as he declares the fruit vendor a “known target”
Why are the people fighting in Fallujah idiots ?
I guess it comes down to how you define victory. The US goal is presumably to occupy territory and demoralize the opposition, while incurring minimum losses.
The insurgents can seek to achieve victory by making the price too high for the US, by rallying others to their cause, by taking the fight to other cities… Or maybe they’re simply prepared to die for a cause they believe is right.
I wouldn’t want to have to decide whether to tell my son to fight or to hide (and maybe he wouldn’t listen to me).
I’m not saying they’d be right to fight to the death. I don’t know, I’m not in their shoes. I do believe they deserve the same respect we give to coalition troops.
I think the answer asteroide is that if George Washington had given up when everything looked pretty bad… it would also have avoided a lot of bloodshed.
Yes. Immediate and unconditional withdrawal of all American and other occupation troops from Iraq, with the payment of war reparations to the Iraqi people.
Where do I line up for my Nobel prize?
I cheated, that idea was from here
And sorry for the hijack BG, guess I got carried away
There is a crucial difference here, and that is that the Americans do not want to kill civilians. They do not, for example, round up Iraqi clerics and threaten to kill 50 each hour until an American hostage is released. They do not randomly blow things up to make people afraid to do the things they need to do to restore order to their lives and their country. When something truly unethical does happen, it is investigated and denounced (e.g. Abu Ghraib).
For the Americans, unnecessary civilian deaths are avoided whenever possible. Besides the pragmatic reasons for this, such as international law and psychological warfare, it is a basic aspect of American and Western beliefs on war that non-combatants should not be killed. This is essentially why you are seeing footage of children’s bodies being removed from ruins; it is provided to news outlets because it will enrage Westerners, and the intent is to use the dead children as propaganda objects. Remember also that you will not be told the entire objective truth about why the building was blown up. You will see footage that shows the largest amount of occupier brutality focused on the most innocent and undeserving civilians, usually with a story to match. It is not difficult to lie about who was in a building when it was bombed, and it is impossible to expose such a lie.
Contrast this with a humanitarian worker who is taken hostage and beheaded, or a journalist. Contrast this with a truck bomb in front of a police station. In these cases, noncombatant civilian targets are deliberately chosen in a way that will maximize psychological impact, that will maximize the number of deaths caused, that will maximize the disruption to the restoration of a peaceful society. This is the basic difference.
I should note that my definition of ‘civilian’ is a person, of any religion, age, or gender, who does not participate in armed conflict. I do not exclude males because they are of appropriate age to participate; I do not exclude boys because they will grow up to be men; I do not exclude women because they can bear children who might grow up to be men; I do not exclude people whose religion is different than mine.
From the fourth Geneva Convention, 1949:
Persons taking no active part in the hostilities, including members of armed forces who have laid down their arms and those placed hors de combat by sickness, wounds, detention, or any other cause, shall in all circumstances be treated humanely, without any adverse distinction founded on race, colour, religion or faith, sex, birth or wealth, or any other similar criteria. (Article 3 (1))
Besides, I’ve got plans for the weekend! Not to mention, I believe someone else was hoping to lay Siege this weekend. 
Sorry, folks, I couldn’t resist, even if jayjay did beat me to it. I’ll leave the debate to those who actually know something about military strategy now, although with my tongue out of my cheek, it does seem to me that laying siege is a strategy which is much likely to result in fewer casualties for those who are laying siege, if not for those who are besieged. Since my head is spinning with the possibilities for double- and triple entendres in that statement, if anyone wants to make one, it’s fine with me.
You’re ever-lovin’
Siege;)
Frankenstein Monster: What do you expect would happen if the Americans just left, say tomorrow?
Siege: That’s true of medieval sieges; sometimes the attacker just surrounded the castle and waited to see who ran out of food or water first, without a whole lot of fighting. Kind of like a staring contest, or mutual assured destruction, only sometimes you get a castle full of people drinking urine.*
I might have thought of a quadruple entendre, but I’m not really sure how it goes. Creative minds can think of all sorts of possibilities. Therefore, feel free to experiment with the following military strategy terms: ‘outflank’, ‘rear guard’, ‘wedge attack’, ‘line abreast’.
[SIZE=1]*: Reference available upon request.
:eek:
What’s a nice Episcopalian like you doing in a joke like that?
Good question. Oh, it could definitely get ugly. No doubt about it. There could possibly even be some actual Fighting among some Iraqi groups! Tens, maybe hundreds of people could get killed. :rolleyes:
It’s freedom, and freedom can be messy, right?
I don’t know if they “want” or not to kill civilians. I know that they kill civilians, with full knowledge that they’re going to kill civilians.
I understand also that they don’t build concentration camp and gas chamber. We’re a long way from discussing whether they “avoid civilian deaths whenever possible”.
Paint me unconvinced. There has been attempt to bury the Abu Ghraib scandal, and I never heard anymore about the evidences presented to the US senate (or perhaps congress?) which included, according to the people who saw them, way worse crimes that what has been disclosed to us. What were these crimes? Committed by whom? When will the trials take place?
I would note also that Abu Ghraib was disclosed only thanks to a whistleblower, not due to the willingness of the american army to closely monitor what was going on in Abu Ghraib, and put an end to it as soon as they knew. And also that there were many reports by Iraki people, by the medias, by NGOs, that people were detained without any justifiable reason, that the families weren’t told whether they were still detained or not , where they were detained, whether they were still alive or not, let alone why they were detained. Everybody mentionned torture except the american authorities. Everybody mentioned awful conditions of detentions (no sanitary facilities, diseases, sub-standard food, etc…) in several prisonners camps, except once again the american authorities. Everybody mentionned that people were arrested essentially randomly (upon denounciation by a jealous neighbor, because they were at some specific place at some specific moment, because they were accused of crimes unrelated to the occupation), except the american authorities. So, apparently, everybody (including me) knew that something unsavory was going on except the US army.
So, sorry, but I don’t have any faith in the US authorities disclosing and investigating crimes, going on (or to admit to them) unless they’re forced to do so because material evidences (since testimonies are routinely ignored and shrugged away) are publically disclosed. The day when they’ll allow an independant body (by independant, I mean non-american) to fully investigate the matter, I’ll believe them.
Not to mention that the US authorities have consistently lied about every aspect of this war since before it began. The american administration credibility is abyssmally low. I very seriously give more credence to the statement of a random Iraki than to a statement coming from the Pentagon, nowadays. And vastly, vastly more credence to the statements of a NGO or journalist.
That’s what we’re are disagreeing about. Flattening a building or neighborhood on the basis that there might be a terrorist cell or an individual staying therer isn’t “avoiding necessary deaths whenever possible” in my book.
Very interesting. But apparently, non-combattants are still killed.
What make you think that these footages are necessarily “provided”? There are journalists on the ground, when the area is accessible. I read reports from journalists in Fallujah, which isn’t the most accessible place in Irak. Didn’t you?Besides, it’s not for propaganda purpose that these footages are broadacasted, but because it’s more “newsworthy” (read : good for the audience rating). You read in the paper : X persons have been killed yesterday, including Z children during an attack in whatever place. On TV, they show you one of the Z children.
Besides, even if these footages were only propaganda provided by Al Qaida, these children wouldn’t be any less dead.
Indeed. The only thing we know about the attack is generally the statement issued by the US army. Which is hardly unbiased.
Generally without any story to match. Only the official statement of the US army about the causes of the attack, and the testimonies of the neighbors and medical services about the consequences. And even assuming that the US statement is entirely truthfull, when it amounts to “we had good reasons to assume that [insert name here] was there” it’s still not a valid justification to blow up some dozens civilians in my book.
Indeed. That’s why I don’t take the word of the US army at face value. Generally, there’s no other side of the story at all. At best some neighbor stating that there was no terrorist cell or whatever it is that was supposed to be targetted in the building.
Why should I contrast it with that??? The issue was whether or not the US army was avoiding civilian deaths whenever possible. Not whether or not the US army kidnapped and beheaded humanitarian workers.
Great. We’re on agreement with the definition. These people are still dead.
Yes, just like when we fought in Europe during World War Two.
Because they could negotiate with the new Iraqi government and spare themselves, the city, and the people in it…if they chose too. They could stack their weapons and stand down and they would be allowed back into the fold…hell, THATS what the government wants. They can’t win and will be rooted out eventually. Wishful thinking aside, if the US chooses to go into Fallujah they will lose. It will probably be costly for us…it will certainly be costly for them. And it could all be avoided by them giving in. I suppose if their goal is to go out in a blaze of glory then they aren’t ‘idiots’…but they aren’t very bright either.
The US goal is a stable Iraq. The new Iraqi governments goal is stability. Fallujah represents a destabalizing force. Simple as that. The new Iraqi government has been trying to negotiate with the people in Fallujah for months. Muslim clerics have been urging the folks in Fallujah to give in. They won’t. That situation simply can’t go on like this indefinitely.
Its stupid we are there. Its stupid that we invaded in the first place. However, thats spilled milk. We ARE there. We DID invade. Now we have to do the best we can to stabalize that fucked up situation…otherwise that entire country could go up in flames, and those flames could spread throughout the region.
If my son was in Fallujah I’d tell him to leave…or rather, I would have told him to leave months ago. If he chose to stay then its in fates hands and there would be nothing I could do about it. Sort of like real life…I didn’t WANT my son to join the Marines…he chose too. Luckily for me he hasn’t been sent to Iraq (yet). But it was HIS choice.
I disagree. They are fighting for personal power and are destabalizing the nation. They are fighting because they don’t wish to join the process which MIGHT allow the Iraqi’s to vote for their own government sometime next year. Why? Because they realize they will be marginalized in such a situation (i.e. they are a splinter Shi’ite group if I remember correctly who won’t be the ones to grasp the majority of the power in a general election).
They COULD negotiate and aren’t being asked to do more than surrender their weapons and stand down by the Iraqi government. The Iraqi government WANTS them to come back into the fold…they refuse. And they refuse in the face of overwhelming military power. Between the new Iraqi army and the US military they don’t have a chance to win this fight and it will end bloody all around. When you are up against hopeless odds, with innocent civilians caught inbetween, the smart thing to do is to negotiate or surrender.
Different situation. It NEVER looked this grim for GW, where it was a no win situation. GW was never trapped in a city where the British could bring overwhelming force to bear…where there was nothing he could do but go out in a blaze of glory and condemn the civilians in said city to pain and death. Had he been in such a situation and chose to fight it out I’d call him an idiot too.
-XT
:dubious: That’s the truth but not the whole truth. Iraq was stable under Hussein’s brutal dictatorship, but that was not satisfactory to the Bush Admin. The U.S. goal is an Iraq which is stable and a U.S. client state, one that will allow our corporations to run its oil industry, which will never act against our interests in the region, and which can be used as a staging ground for any further military interventions the Admin might judge necessary. No matter how the election goes, no matter whether a new government with perceived legitimacy is established or not, and no matter whether the insurgency dies down or not, I don’t believe for a minute that our troops will be pulled out any time during Bush’s second term. Do you?
I think it’ll become much like Germany or South Korea, and to a lesser extent Japan, where there is a large US presence, and a democratic representative gov in the area (I know Korea is only a recent example) theres no rule saying that can’t exist.
Germany and Japan were real nations, with a well-developed sense of national identity, before the U.S. ever occupied them. They were also highly modernized and industrialized nations with a well-established tradition of secular rule of law, and where the concept of parliamentary government was at any rate not a strange and alien one. Conditions in Iraq are very different. It is not a real nation. In its long history it has at various times been ruled by independent monarchical city-states, by foreign empires, by tribal leaders, by theocrats, by monarchies, by dictatorships, but never by anything close to a democratic or republican government. I hope, but don’t believe, that we can pull off a similar feat of democracy-building there.
Er, correct me if I’m mistaken, but the city has been under siege for quite some time now. Apparently - get this - laying siege to a civilian city with some insurgent rebels isn’t the best idea in the world.
This isn’t Leningrad, and it isn’t Vietnam (where you had forward fire bases “under siege” by VC). A siege in this kind of warfare is just stupid. Well, this kind of warfare is just stupid anyway. You can (and we have) spend all day arguing who is at fault for the civilian deaths - the Americans as invaders and/or liberators, the insurgents/terrorists for using civilians as body shields, but at the end of the day, you still have the same situation.
A siege is just bad mojo. As the civilian deaths pile up, the world (and Iraqis) will just get more and more resentful.
As to the earlier squibbling about Iraq turning out well or not if we leave now, well, we dug them a hole, and we’d better help them get out of it - but not necessarily by killing everyone who disagrees with how we run the country. We need to be pouring more money into rebuilding Iraq and, well, winning hearts and minds. So far all we’ve done is piss everyone off with clumsy policy and half-assed attempts at “rebuilding”.
And there’s another difference: In the environment of the Cold War, the American troops occupying West Germany, Japan and South Korea could also be viewed, with some justice, as defending those countries against the Communist menace. But nobody in Iraq is likely to think American troops are there to defend them against any of the countries with whom they were at war or on bad terms when Hussein ruled – Iran, SA, Turkey. In fact, Iraq’s Shi’ites might well prefer Iranian occupation to American occupation.