US strikes raze Falluja hospital

[Justice 0]

There was no threat in Iraq to smoke out. Sorry, but there wasn't.

This is basically proven wrong by the Dueffler Report. Saddam was well on his way to lifting sanctions through bribes and restarting his programs. Unless you actually wanted to invade when he had them, I feel we got pretty damn lucky that he probably didn't.

 

If you want to go after the people who fund Al Qaeda/The Taliban, look no further then Saudi Arabia, which there still has been no answer as to why they have been ignored in those whole situation.

 

Uh, yeah, there is. As much as you bitch about it, Saudi Arabia is probably the last on our list because invading it does the least amount of actual good. Invade the place with Mecca and Medina? Are you nuts?

 

I outlined this before in the thread, but you obviously didn't read it. We set the dominos up, and then push them down. That's how we'll get Saudi Arabia: Social Pressure from the rest of the Middle East. Otherwise it's nigh off-limits unless you want something worse than Vietnam ever could be. And people wonder why I don't want a liberal handling my foreign policy.

 

Also, Al Qaeda was not limited to Afganistan.

 

Well, no shit.

 

If Bush wanted to show that he wants to rid the world of terrorism, then after Afganistan, he should be going after other parts of the world that are Taliban strong holds.

 

Like? There weren't any other Taliban strongholds. We have US troops fighting them in the Phillipines already, where else do you want us to go.

 

One of which is NOT Iraq.

 

And this means what to me?

 

Our goal I thought was to wipe out terrorism, not remove dictators.

 

*Sigh*

 

You don't get it, do you? Look, we aren't fighting just terrorism, we are fighting an ideology. This ideology is not only bred in terrorist organizations but propagated and furthered on a national scale in nations like Iraq, Iran, and Syria. All you seem focused on is "What can we do to solve this now?" when there is no immediate solution. It's a long, hard process of destroying the bastions of this ideology, but it's the only way that is a long term solution. Destroying Al Qadia while ignoring the states that produce and support such an ideology is just ignoring the real problem, which is something we don't want to do. Destroy the nation-states that further this and plant down the system that destroys such ignorance and they'll not have a place to hide or breed.

 

And the citizens of Iraq while I could never support them because they are firing at US Troops, are still Iraqi Citizens that oppose the occupation, not Al Qaeda terrorists.

 

That's one... odd sentence. Just weird-ass wording. Never said that there weren't Iraqis that opposed the US prescence there. Of course:

 

I guess you could argue that once they start shooting at our military then it doesn't matter about technicalities, and with that I would fully agree, but I think we need to get the facts straight about who exactly we are fighting right now.

 

Insurgency made up of both terrorists, Saddam loyalists, and religious extremists?

 

It would be the same as Germany trying to take over america in WWII, and every american citizen fighting off the Germany until death was being called a Terrorist by the German media.

 

That has to be the worst comparison ever. Seriously, that's disregarding many of the facts behind Iraq and the fact that a majority of Iraqis support the new Government.

 

Those idiot Iraqis that are fighting the US Occupation, are in disagreement of what is going on there, and I would venture the madness goes deeper then, "we hate america arghhh" They probably see the situation with their natural resources no longer belonging to them, and US Global corporations raking in some killer profits rebuilding the cities that our military has leveled.

 

Wow, so did they hire the same political propagandist as C-Bacon?

 

This is not in any way to suggest they are in the right, however it is not such a black and white issue that some people are trying to make it.  It is a mess, a fucked up mess, as predicted it would be by the so-called, "hippie left-wing commies"

 

It's not a 'fucked up mess'. It's a tough situation, but a fucked up mess, hardly. This isn't a place that is impossible to succeed, there are just so many people trying to blow everything out of proportion (Example: C-Bacon and his inflated numbers, and hell, this story since we haven't figured out why the hospital has been hit. Cere made a great point since, well, it wasn't really told whether it was a weapons cache or a resistance HQ). It's irritating to see so many people not understand that shit happens during an operation such as Iraq and it's not all fun and games, but that doesn't mean that it's a fucked up mess. There's the possibility, but it hardly has become one yet.

[Big Ol' Smitty 0]

Powerplay, I agree with much of what you said, but I have a couple of qualms:

 

We set the dominos up, and then push them down. That's how we'll get Saudi Arabia: Social Pressure from the rest of the Middle East.

 

I'm not sure if I can buy this domino theory. I don't think having a couple of fledgling liberal democracies in the region are going to somehow cause the other countries to eschew Islamism.

 

Think about the domino theory of the Cold War. It posited that if Vietnam fell to communism, then all of SE and E Asia would follow soon thereafter. Vietnam fell. The dominoes didn't fall.

 

a majority of Iraqis support the new Government.

 

Is this based on the "70% poll"? If so, then I would strongly question the validity of the poll. How could you possibly get a good sample with all of the chaos going on there? Fallujah? Sadr City?

 

If you're not basing it on the poll, then where did you get the info?

[Justice 0]

I'm not sure if I can buy this domino theory. I don't think having a couple of fledgling liberal democracies in the region are going to somehow cause the other countries to eschew Islamism.

 

Think about the domino theory of the Cold War. It posited that if Vietnam fell to communism, then all of SE and E Asia would follow soon thereafter. Vietnam fell. The dominoes didn't fall.

I can understand why, but understand that I'm not saything they will eschew Islam, but more the Fundamentalist version. I think that, honestly, it's not too hard for pressure to start mounting on other countries when these Democracies start getting off the ground. I think that they will succeed; with all the support we are giving them right now, I don't think there is a chance that they will fail unless we have someone like NoCal and Teddy Kennedy constantly decrying it. I think that when we start closing the gap, I think social pressure will start to mount both inside and outside of Saudi Arabia to change. We already see something like this in Iran where students are demanding reform and asking for more liberty and rights.

 

I think this will be different. Vietnam is one domino. This is multiple dominos. Multiple forces pushing for it will be able to reach them. I can understand your doubts, but I see the setup for this as being a bit different.

 

Is this based on the "70% poll"? If so, then I would strongly question the validity of the poll. How could you possibly get a good sample with all of the chaos going on there? Fallujah? Sadr City?

 

If you're not basing it on the poll, then where did you get the info?

 

Most reports I've read have always said that the majority of Iraqis do support the new Government. Of course, you have the Sunni Triangle where there's more resistance, but the overall I've always heard that most Iraqis are supportive of their new government.

 

I know of the poll, and I'd say it's probably close, maybe a little lower. I think there's a lot of difference between supporting the Americans being there and supporting the new government.

[bob_barron 0]

Hey PP- you gonna respond to what else C-Bacon said? I hope your headache has recovered. :-)

[Justice 0]

Hey PP- you gonna respond to what else C-Bacon said? I hope your headache has recovered. :-)

God, I might. I'm really fucking tired, and I didn't realize how much bullshit he actually put into my part until I was really disecting it. We'll see. Maybe sometime later tonight.

[Big Ol' Smitty 0]

I can understand why, but understand that I'm not saything they will eschew Islam, but more the Fundamentalist version.

 

Yeah that's what I meant. Islamism is the political application of Islam.

 

I think there's a lot of difference between supporting the Americans being there and supporting the new government.

 

Excellent point.

[Guest MikeSC]

So no information on whether the hospital was being used as an ammo dump or a hideout for terrorists. Go BBC.

Well, half of their staff is facing the loss of their job.

-=Mike

[Guest MikeSC]

If Bush wanted to show that he wants to rid the world of terrorism, then after Afganistan, he should be going after other parts of the world that are Taliban strong holds. One of which is NOT Iraq.

Um, we had Al Qaeda in THIS country. Are you attempting to argue that, somehow, Iraq managed to avoid having them?

I'm not sure if I can buy this domino theory. I don't think having a couple of fledgling liberal democracies in the region are going to somehow cause the other countries to eschew Islamism.

 

Think about the domino theory of the Cold War. It posited that if Vietnam fell to communism, then all of SE and E Asia would follow soon thereafter. Vietnam fell. The dominoes didn't fall.

Actually, leaving Vietnam allowed such atrocities as the Cambodian Killing Fields to occur.

 

Oh, and Iran is on the verge of toppling. There is a very strong, quiet pro-democracy movement. Having a neighbor next door that is what the youth of the country want is going to cause the theocracy some problems.

-=Mike

[Big Ol' Smitty 0]

I'm not sure if I can buy this domino theory. I don't think having a couple of fledgling liberal democracies in the region are going to somehow cause the other countries to eschew Islamism.

 

Think about the domino theory of the Cold War. It posited that if Vietnam fell to communism, then all of SE and E Asia would follow soon thereafter. Vietnam fell. The dominoes didn't fall.

Actually, leaving Vietnam allowed such atrocities as the Cambodian Killing Fields to occur.

 

Oh, and Iran is on the verge of toppling. There is a very strong, quiet pro-democracy movement. Having a neighbor next door that is what the youth of the country want is going to cause the theocracy some problems.

-=Mike

Good points, both. Let's cross our fingers on Iran.

[Special K 0]

I know very little about the actual military situation in Vietnam, but couldn't we have just held a border with few casualties instead of just getting the hell out of Dodge? I don't see how they could realisitically battle an entrenched U.S. military.

[Guest MikeSC]

I know very little about the actual military situation in Vietnam, but couldn't we have just held a border with few casualties instead of just getting the hell out of Dodge? I don't see how they could realisitically battle an entrenched U.S. military.

The problem was that S. Vietnam was ineptly run. It really was. Military coups were actually PREFERRABLE to the civilian governments that were there.

 

We had a S. Vietnamese army that simply refused to fight (there is a story of somebody attempting to evacuate women out of S. Vietnam shortly before the fall and the plane was overridden with S. Vietnamese troops. Less than 5 women made it on the plane), a public that didn't want the war, a government that refused to actually fight the war, on behalf of a country that could never govern itself.

-=Mike

...That being said, the evacuation of S. Vietnam is one of the most impressive feats the US military has ever pulled off...

[Big Ol' Smitty 0]

I agree about the ineptitude of the S. Vietnamese.

 

There were a few instances of RVN troops fighting fiercely and bravely near the end, as city after city fell, but very few prior to that.

[Guest INXS]

Now that Falluja has been taken (although fighting still continues), it's time to put the battle into perspective.

 

1800 'Insurgents' killed.

40 US soldiers killed

10 Iraqi soldiers killed

400 soldiers injured (and evacuated to Germany for treatment)

Untold amount of civilain dead and wounded (contrary to what some quarters of the media wanted us to believe, up to 50,000 civilians stayed in Falluja, despite the majoity of civilians leaving the city prior to the attack).

Aid agencies can't get in to Falluja, with the city now being dexcribed as a "humanitarian crisis", with no clean water, electricity or food for the civilian population.

 

That's at least 2,250 people dead or injured, not counting the civilian death and injuries which in my humble estimation will be around 500.

 

2,750 dead or injured people in total.

 

Compare that to 9/11 where roughly the same amount of people were killed then it puts this battle of Falluja into perspective.

 

All for oil.

[2GOLD 0]

All for oil.

 

Please leave.

[Guest MikeSC]

Now that Falluja has been taken (although fighting still continues), it's time to put the battle into perspective.

 

1800 'Insurgents' killed.

40 US soldiers killed

10 Iraqi soldiers killed

400 soldiers injured (and evacuated to Germany for treatment)

Untold amount of civilain dead and wounded (contrary to what some quarters of the media wanted us to believe, up to 50,000 civilians stayed in Falluja, despite the majoity of civilians leaving the city prior to the attack).

Aid agencies can't get in to Falluja, with the city now being dexcribed as a "humanitarian crisis", with no clean water, electricity or food for the civilian population.

 

That's at least 2,250 people dead or injured, not counting the civilian death and injuries which in my humble estimation will be around 500.

 

2,750 dead or injured people in total.

 

Compare that to 9/11 where roughly the same amount of people were killed then it puts this battle of Falluja into perspective.

 

All for oil.

All for oil?

 

Yup, those oil prices are damned cheap.

 

You could not conceivably be more incorrect on every possible level.

-=Mike

[Guest INXS]

All for oil.

 

Please leave.

I know, what a whacky conspiracy theory!!!

[Guest Salacious Crumb]

1800 'Insurgents' killed.

 

Good riddance to each and every one of these wastes of air.

[Guest INXS]

Now that Falluja has been taken (although fighting still continues), it's time to put the battle into perspective.

 

1800 'Insurgents' killed.

40 US soldiers killed

10 Iraqi soldiers killed

400 soldiers injured (and evacuated to Germany for treatment)

Untold amount of civilain dead and wounded (contrary to what some quarters of the media wanted us to believe, up to 50,000 civilians stayed in Falluja, despite the majoity of civilians leaving the city prior to the attack).

Aid agencies can't get in to Falluja, with the city now being dexcribed as a "humanitarian crisis", with no clean water, electricity or food for the civilian population.

 

That's at least 2,250 people dead or injured, not counting the civilian death and injuries which in my humble estimation will be around 500.

 

2,750 dead or injured people in total.

 

Compare that to 9/11 where roughly the same amount of  people were killed then it puts this battle of Falluja into perspective.

 

All for oil.

All for oil?

 

Yup, those oil prices are damned cheap.

 

You could not conceivably be more incorrect on every possible level.

-=Mike

That arguement holds no ground. Of course it's not going to be cheaper to the consumer, and besides, full production hasn't started yet.

 

The US now have control of the oil in Iraq. They have sold the contracts to US companies (to which some of the American government are close to, see Haliburton.)

[Guest INXS]

1800 'Insurgents' killed.

 

Good riddance to each and every one of these wastes of air.

I'm willing to bet that the vast majority of 'insurgents' aren't the stereotypical terrorists but Iraqi people taking up arms against occupying forces.

[Guest MikeSC]

That arguement holds no ground. Of course it's not going to be cheaper to the consumer, and besides, full production hasn't started yet.

I'll go over it again. If we're all about oil, we wouldn't boycott Iran. We wouldn't support Israel against the countries who actually have oil.

The US now have control of the oil in Iraq. They have sold the contracts to US companies (to which some of the American government are close to, see Haliburton.)

Which is a step above the UN taking oil contracts to keep Saddam afloat.

-=Mike

[Guest Salacious Crumb]

That's complete and utter bullshit and you know it. These pieces of shit have probably killed more Iraqis then they have American soldiers and I bet not a single one gives a shit either way as long as someone dies.

[Guest MikeSC]

1800 'Insurgents' killed.

 

Good riddance to each and every one of these wastes of air.

I'm willing to bet that the vast majority of 'insurgents' aren't the stereotypical terrorists but Iraqi people taking up arms against occupying forces.

Would you leave if you're wrong?

 

Because you are.

-=Mike

[Big Ol' Smitty 0]

Yup, those oil prices are damned cheap.

 

Although I don't agree with INXS, that's a pretty lame way to refute his argument.

[Guest MikeSC]

Yup, those oil prices are damned cheap.

 

Although I don't agree with INXS, that's a pretty lame way to refute his argument.

No, it's a very solid refutation. If we're doing things for oil, explain why prices are so high. Explain why we support Israel over Arab countries that have oil. Explain why we're quite possibly the only country to boycott Iranian oil.

-=Mike

[Big Ol' Smitty 0]

Yup, those oil prices are damned cheap.

 

Although I don't agree with INXS, that's a pretty lame way to refute his argument.

No, it's a very solid refutation. If we're doing things for oil, explain why prices are so high. Explain why we support Israel over Arab countries that have oil. Explain why we're quite possibly the only country to boycott Iranian oil.

-=Mike

I don't think our involvement in the Middle East is totally oil-related for the record. Hell, Tom Delay and the rest of the Christian Right probably just want to speed along the apocalypse.

 

However, by securing the flow of Iraqi oil, the US could break the Saudi's and OPEC's hold on the global oil market. The Bush energy policy is pretty oil-friendly.

[Guest MikeSC]

I don't think our involvement in the Middle East is totally oil-related for the record. Hell, Tom Delay and the rest of the Christian Right probably just want to speed along the apocalypse.

The right wants war about as much as the left does.

However, by securing the flow of Iraqi oil, the US could break the Saudi's and OPEC's hold on the global oil market.  The Bush energy policy is pretty oil-friendly.

Except we're fairly certain that Iraq won't stay out of OPEC. And OPEC claims they cannot control prices.

-=Mike

[Guest BDC]

I just wanted to say how great it is that INXS wants to shit all over our troops... again.

 

Oil, oil, oil, no one buys this whiny rhetoric anymore, go find a new excuse.

 

I'm willing to bet that the vast majority of 'insurgents' aren't the stereotypical terrorists but Iraqi people taking up arms against occupying forces.

 

Oh, and the high turnout rates of Iraqis joining the Iraqi police forces is totally irrelevent, right?

[Conspiracy_Victim 0]

Yep all for oil. Hell while we're at it, let's head south and invade Mexico and Venezuela. There's tons of oil there and it'll be easier to get to and take over. GENIUS! Why didn't Bush think of it before? He could have said he was going in to wipe out the drug cartels!

 

BTW if you think we're only over there for oil, not in order to save the Iraqis from brutal "people" with no concern for life or freedom, try these articles:

 

here

or here

or even here

 

And if you think that the fighting in Fallujah is due to Iraqi "freedom fighters", try this article.

 

But of course, these must all just be right-wing propaganda pieces.

 

Smitty, I'm guessing by your casual dismissal of religious people that you are an atheist/agnostic/practicing non-practitioner of religion. I consider myself religious (although not as strict as most southern Baptists) and take personal offense to your flippant "speed along the apocalypse" line. Either it was a very lame attempt at a joke or you haven't the first clue as to what the Apocalypse will be like. Either way it was in very poor taste (although that doesn't seem to stop people anyway).

 

Also, I've met Mr. DeLay and he is not the ogre you and the rest of the liberNazis like to claim. He took the time (close to an hour) out of a busy day to meet with me because I was a constituent of his who happened to be in Washington. I'm glad he won re-election (the worst his opponent could say in his ads was that DeLay "seemed arrogant on Capitol Hill").

[Big Ol' Smitty 0]

Smitty, I'm guessing by your casual dismissal of religious people that you are an atheist/agnostic/practicing non-practitioner of religion. I consider myself religious (although not as strict as most southern Baptists) and take personal offense to your flippant "speed along the apocalypse" line. Either it was a very lame attempt at a joke or you haven't the first clue as to what the Apocalypse will be like. Either way it was in very poor taste (although that doesn't seem to stop people anyway).

 

Also, I've met Mr. DeLay and he is not the ogre you and the rest of the liberNazis like to claim. He took the time (close to an hour) out of a busy day to meet with me because I was a constituent of his who happened to be in Washington. I'm glad he won re-election (the worst his opponent could say in his ads was that DeLay "seemed arrogant on Capitol Hill").

 

I'm sorry if I offended you, I didn't mean to. And I'll admit, I have no idea what the apocalypse will be like.

 

I don't have any problem with people having these religious beliefs. I don't, however, want them to affect my country's foreign policy. I wasn't trying to be dismissive of religion in general, but of those in positions of power who base their foreign policy on their religion.

 

Tom Delay has very close ties to dispensational premillennialism.

 

"Conservative evangelicals like House Majority Leader Tom DeLay offer unilateral support to Israel based on the New Testament prophecy that the reconstruction of the ancient kingdom of David will usher in the "end times" and the Second Coming of Christ."

 

Source: Tim Lahaye's website

 

"Dispensationalist House Majority Leader Tom Delay shares Graham’s belief: “I’ve been to Masada. I’ve toured Judea and Samaria. I’ve walked the streets of Jerusalem, and I’ve stood on the Golan Heights. . . . And you know what? I didn’t see any occupied territory. What I saw was Israel!” In other words, since God has given the land of Israel to the Jews, there can be no Palestinian state. The Palestinians simply do not have any claim to the land on which they have lived for 2,000 years. And anyone who disagrees will suffer the wrath of God.

 

Divided loyalties such as these are nothing but a recipe for disaster in the realm of foreign policy. "

 

Source: Chronicles

[Big Ol' Smitty 0]

liberNazis

 

Nice. How long did it take to think up that gem?