US strikes raze Falluja hospital

[cbacon 0]

The reports coming in indicate that 600 cilvians have died in Falluja. Even more disturbing:

 

"People in Falloojeh are being murdered. The stories coming back are horrifying. People being shot in cold blood in the streets and being buried under tons of concrete and iron... where is the world? Bury Arafat and hurry up and pay attention to what's happening in Iraq" - -Baghdad Burning, November 13, 2004

 

There are also reports that the US are employing gas attacks in the city.

 

Insurgernts and military alike are both guilty of breeching rules for war:

 

"Amnesty International fears that civilians have been killed, in contravention of international humanitarian law, as a result of failure by parties to the fighting to take necessary precautions to protect non-combatants," Amnesty said.

 

 

Article (for those anal about Common Dreams, it was originally published by Reuters)

 

 

In terms of oil, it's only part of the equation. The war falls under the banner of 'state-sponsored terrorism.' The inital goal of this war was regime change. The use of force to change forms of government falls under 'terrorism.' So, in effect, the US are not only fighting a war against terrorism, but engaged in the act itself. Oil plays a part in this yes, but maintaining control over Iraq and making sure whatever regieme is in place plays ball is essential to gaining greater influence and control in the Middle East.

 

Mike pointed out that the US supports Israel, thus claiming that the US really isn't in it for the oil. Hegemony isn't just about oil however, it is about using economic, political, and military means to maintain sole superpower status. Control of the Middle East is critical in their strategey, since the entire world depends on oil. Israel is by far the most well-armed state in that region, including nuclear arms. The US corporations gave the Israli's all these apache helcopters and F-16's. They support Israel and, indeed helped create Israel, as one more method to ensure control/influence over the Middle East. From the point of view of the U.S., the current state of Israel is essentially an offshore U.S. military base.

 

There's that, and fanatical religious ideology too. America's domestic majority of fundamentalist christians (not a few of whom occupy the White House) who believe that in order for Armegeddon to happen, the Jewish Temple, which currently serves as the foundation for a crucial mosque, must be rebuilt. Obviously i'm not saying this is the view of all fanatical conservatives, but it's not that far off in some cases, where religious wackos that run the country use this kind of mind set . Skeptical? Frightening commentary like this: http://www.hallindseyoracle.com/. . is an example of what this kind of thinking entails.

[Conspiracy_Victim 0]

liberNazis

 

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

Right off the top of my head, which is wierd since I'm all ill-educated red state brute.

 

I'm sorry, are Republicans (and Bush specifically) the only ones that can be unfairly compared to the Nazis? I must have missed Terry McAuliffe's memo.

[bob_barron 0]

The first source can't even spell Fallujah.

 

Strike one

[cbacon 0]

The first source can't even spell Fallujah.

 

Strike one

Alternate spelling based on regional and cultural differences. Much like the different variations of al-Qaeda. Since it's from someone in the country, I wouldn't be so quick to disregard their statements.

[Big Ol' Smitty 0]

Right off the top of my head, which is wierd since I'm all ill-educated red state brute.

 

Judging by your spelling, yes.

 

*runs away*

[Conspiracy_Victim 0]

There are also reports that the US are employing gas attacks in the city.

So "resistance fighters" report to IslamOnline.com (the site with a picture of Yassyr Arafat and "The Enigmatic Leader" on the headline) that gas has been used by American troops, so it must be true.

 

I particularly liked "“Therefore, US troops opted for using internationally banned weapons to soften the praiseworthy resistance of Fallujah people."

 

That website makes it sound like American troops are lining people up along the sides of the road and executing them a la Katyn Forest. Rediculous. It makes the alphabet networks seem middle of the road by comparison.

[Conspiracy_Victim 0]

Right off the top of my head, which is wierd since I'm all ill-educated red state brute.

 

Judging by your spelling, yes.

 

*runs away*

*claps hands* Point taken. I will go take down my degree and throw it into the nearest fireplace.

[Big Ol' Smitty 0]

Right off the top of my head, which is wierd since I'm all ill-educated red state brute.

 

Judging by your spelling, yes.

 

*runs away*

*claps hands* Point taken. I will go take down my degree and throw it into the nearest fireplace.

I think that's an acceptable penalty.

[Justice 0]

The reports coming in indicate that 600 cilvians have died in Falluja.

I'm not doubting you (yet), but do you have any credible sources on this one?

 

Even more disturbing:

 

"People in Falloojeh are being murdered. The stories coming back are horrifying. People being shot in cold blood in the streets and being buried under tons of concrete and iron... where is the world? Bury Arafat and hurry up and pay attention to what's happening in Iraq" - -Baghdad Burning, November 13, 2004

 

Wow, that's pretty shitty writing. From reports I've heard, yes, civilians have gotten caught up in crossfires, air strikes, and surprise surprise, Resistance Snipers. Sorry, it'll happen in war. We've also killed over 2,000 insurgents and are pretty much rooting them out of their biggest stronghold. I feel sorry for those who have died, but the action was necessary.

 

There are also reports that the US are employing gas attacks in the city.

 

Ah great, unconfirmed and anonyamous sources. Those are REAL credible. You do understand that, no matter what the military does, using gas and chemical attacks would be nearly impossible to hide from the military. You can try and shout military blackout all you want, but word will get out one way or another, and the networks would get it. A disgruntled soldier talking to a news reporter, or even one embedded reporter.

 

And you should at least TRY to get an unbiased source on this. Seriously, IslamOnline isn't a very credible reporting service.

 

Insurgernts and military alike are both guilty of breeching rules for war:

 

"Amnesty International fears that civilians have been killed, in contravention of international humanitarian law, as a result of failure by parties to the fighting to take necessary precautions to protect non-combatants," Amnesty said.

 

 

Article (for those anal about Common Dreams, it was originally published by Reuters)

 

Though I'm sure there have been some incidents which may need to be taken care of, I honestly think to say that the US hasn't tried to take precautions to prevent civilian deaths is absurd because it works against them so much. Of course, you bring this up as a shocking revealation or some sort, which it sort of isn't. *shrugs*

 

In terms of oil, it's only part of the equation. The war falls under the banner of 'state-sponsored terrorism.' The inital goal of this war was regime change. The use of force to change forms of government falls under 'terrorism.' So, in effect, the US are not only fighting a war against terrorism, but engaged in the act itself. Oil plays a part in this yes, but maintaining control over Iraq and making sure whatever regieme is in place plays ball is essential to gaining greater influence and control in the Middle East.

 

So we were in effect excerising Terrorism by going full tilt at Germany and instituting a new government there, right? Because, frankly, we didn't need to go that far. We only did it to prevent a problem. (Before you say "Hitler attacked other nations/us", Saddam has attacked 3 different nations with Kuwait, Iran, and Turkey. He could easily be considered a problem)

 

Secondly, use of force to change governments is not literally terrorism. That's an incorrect definition. It's far too broad, though that's how you would put it to suite your needs. A few different definitions.

 

You are trying to twist terrorism against the US, ignoring the fact that there were legitimate reasons to deseating Saddam. No one wanted Saddam in power (outside his benefactors, of course): He was a dictator who had constantly proven to be a hinderance to Middle East stability. I can't see how you can liken this Again, you try to overgeneralize a complex situation, which is why you point is flawed.

 

Mike pointed out that the US supports Israel, thus claiming that the US really isn't in it for the oil. Hegemony isn't just about oil however, it is about using economic, political, and military means to maintain sole superpower status. Control of the Middle East is critical in their strategey, since the entire world depends on oil. Israel is by far the most well-armed state in that region, including nuclear arms. The US corporations gave the Israli's all these apache helcopters and F-16's. They support Israel and, indeed helped create Israel, as one more method to ensure control/influence over the Middle East. From the point of view of the U.S., the current state of Israel is essentially an offshore U.S. military base.

 

Point in case, we started supporting Israel 1) Because it was the first stable democracy in the region and 2) Because it was the defender, not the aggressor, in the initial conflicts to come. The entire reason behind it becoming the most well-armed state in the region is because it has had to fight numerous wars on it's own soil to defend itself from outside invaders. Otherwise you'd better believe that Israel would be only an extention of Jordan right now.

 

Actually, at the moment Israel has started developing a lot of their own weapons. Their small arms and their tanks (With the Merkeva) are starting to become exclusively Israeli, so American Corporations profit less and less from Israel. Just so you know.

 

And, um, please, don't try to speak for the US. You obviously don't know how to, so don't.

 

There's that, and fanatical religious ideology too. America's domestic majority of fundamentalist christians (not a few of whom occupy the White House) who believe that in order for Armegeddon to happen, the Jewish Temple, which currently serves as the foundation for a crucial mosque, must be rebuilt. Obviously i'm not saying this is the view of all fanatical conservatives, but it's not that far off in some cases, where religious wackos that run the country use this kind of mind set . Skeptical? Frightening commentary like this: http://www.hallindseyoracle.com/. . is an example of what this kind of thinking entails.

 

First off, it's great that you think Bush is a fundamentalist Christian. Good for you, though I don't think he's at that level. He's deeply religious, but you just obviously don't understand how far you have to be to be fundamenatlist. I'd say that he can be a bit over-religious, but I don't think he's nearly at a fundamentalist level. I only wish you could start condemning the Islamic Fundamentalists as much as you do Bush, a 'fundamentalist'.

 

And when it comes to frightening commentary and thinking: Pot, meet kettle.

[Big Ol' Smitty 0]

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article3535.htm

 

This is a link to the document produced by the The Independent Task Force on Strategic Energy Policy Challenges for the 21st Century.

 

This is a very interesting document that discusses the impending energy crisis. I have quoted an excerpt that discusses Iraq.

 

 

 

Review policies toward Iraq with the aim to lowering anti-Americanism in the Middle East and elsewhere, and set the groundwork to eventually ease Iraqi oil-field investment restrictions. Iraq remains a destabilizing influence to U.S. allies in the Middle East, as well as to regional and global order, and to the flow of oil to international markets from the Middle East. Saddam Hussein has also demonstrated a willingness to threaten to use the oil weapon and to use his own export program to manipulate oil markets. This would display his personal power, enhance his image as a "Pan Arab" leader supporting the Palestinians against Israel, and pressure others for a lifting of economic sanctions against his regime.

The United States should conduct an immediate policy review toward Iraq, including military, energy, economic, and political/diplomatic assessments. The United States should then develop an integrated strategy with key allies in Europe and Asia and with key countries in the Middle East to restate the goals with respect to Iraqi policy and to restore a cohesive coalition of key allies. Goals should be designed in a realistic fashion, and they should be clearly and consistently stated and defended to revive U.S. credibility on this issue. Actions and policies to promote these goals should endeavor to enhance the well-being of the Iraqi people. Sanctions that are not effective should be phased out and replaced with highly focused and enforced sanctions that target the regime’s ability to maintain and acquire weapons of mass destruction. A new plan of action should be developed to use diplomatic and other means to support U.N. Security Council efforts to build a strong arms-control regime to stem the flow of arms and controlled substances into Iraq. Policy should rebuild coalition cooperation on this issue, while emphasizing the common interest in security. This issue of arms sales to Iraq should be brought near the top of the agenda for dialogue with China and Russia.

 

Once an arms-control program is in place, the United States could consider reducing restrictions on oil investments inside Iraq. Like it or not, Iraqi reserves represent a major asset that can quickly add capacity to world oil markets and inject a more competitive tenor to oil trade. However, such a policy will be quite costly as this trade-off will encourage Saddam Hussein to boast of his "victory" against the United States, fuel his ambitions, and potentially strengthen his regime. Once so encouraged and if his access to oil revenues were to be increased by adjustments in oil sanctions, Saddam Hussein could be a greater security threat to U.S. allies in the region if weapons of mass destruction (WMD) sanctions, weapons regimes, and the coalition against him are not strengthened. Still, the maintenance of continued oil sanctions is becoming increasingly difficult to implement. Moreover, Saddam Hussein has many means of gaining revenues, and the sanctions regime helps perpetuate his lock on the country’s economy.

[Justice 0]

Review policies toward Iraq with the aim to lowering anti-Americanism in the Middle East and elsewhere, and set the groundwork to eventually ease Iraqi oil-field investment restrictions. Iraq remains a destabilizing influence to U.S. allies in the Middle East, as well as to regional and global order, and to the flow of oil to international markets from the Middle East. Saddam Hussein has also demonstrated a willingness to threaten to use the oil weapon and to use his own export program to manipulate oil markets. This would display his personal power, enhance his image as a "Pan Arab" leader supporting the Palestinians against Israel, and pressure others for a lifting of economic sanctions against his regime.

The United States should conduct an immediate policy review toward Iraq, including military, energy, economic, and political/diplomatic assessments. The United States should then develop an integrated strategy with key allies in Europe and Asia and with key countries in the Middle East to restate the goals with respect to Iraqi policy and to restore a cohesive coalition of key allies. Goals should be designed in a realistic fashion, and they should be clearly and consistently stated and defended to revive U.S. credibility on this issue. Actions and policies to promote these goals should endeavor to enhance the well-being of the Iraqi people. Sanctions that are not effective should be phased out and replaced with highly focused and enforced sanctions that target the regime’s ability to maintain and acquire weapons of mass destruction. A new plan of action should be developed to use diplomatic and other means to support U.N. Security Council efforts to build a strong arms-control regime to stem the flow of arms and controlled substances into Iraq. Policy should rebuild coalition cooperation on this issue, while emphasizing the common interest in security. This issue of arms sales to Iraq should be brought near the top of the agenda for dialogue with China and Russia.

 

Once an arms-control program is in place, the United States could consider reducing restrictions on oil investments inside Iraq. Like it or not, Iraqi reserves represent a major asset that can quickly add capacity to world oil markets and inject a more competitive tenor to oil trade. However, such a policy will be quite costly as this trade-off will encourage Saddam Hussein to boast of his "victory" against the United States, fuel his ambitions, and potentially strengthen his regime. Once so encouraged and if his access to oil revenues were to be increased by adjustments in oil sanctions, Saddam Hussein could be a greater security threat to U.S. allies in the region if weapons of mass destruction (WMD) sanctions, weapons regimes, and the coalition against him are not strengthened. Still, the maintenance of continued oil sanctions is becoming increasingly difficult to implement. Moreover, Saddam Hussein has many means of gaining revenues, and the sanctions regime helps perpetuate his lock on the country’s economy.

Odd why you didn't seem to care about these. I really doubt these guys were pushing Dubya into War because of their suggestions here.

[Big Ol' Smitty 0]

I did "care" about those parts, but I didn't think they were as immediately pertinent to the thread. I would definitely encourage anyone interested to read the entire document.

 

I'm pro-war, by the way.

 

I just think it's kind of silly and naive to think that the single most important strategic resource on the planet didn't play a role at all in the decision making leading up to war in the country that has the second largest oil reserves in the world.

[Guest MikeSC]

The reports coming in indicate that 600 cilvians have died in Falluja. Even more disturbing:

"People in Falloojeh are being murdered. The stories coming back are horrifying. People being shot in cold blood in the streets and being buried under tons of concrete and iron... where is the world? Bury Arafat and hurry up and pay attention to what's happening in Iraq" - -Baghdad Burning, November 13, 2004

There are also reports that the US are employing gas attacks in the city.

Insurgernts and military alike are both guilty of breeching rules for war:

 

 

 

Source of the claim: Islam Online --- quoting --- and this is verbatim --- "resistance sources".

 

Forgive me if I think they MIGHT have an idealogical axe to grind. We already saw the Palestinians INVENTING a humantarian crisis out of Jenin a few years back. My faith in this is lacking.

"Amnesty International fears that civilians have been killed, in contravention of international humanitarian law, as a result of failure by parties to the fighting to take necessary precautions to protect non-combatants," Amnesty said.

Article (for those anal about Common Dreams, it was originally published by Reuters)

Ignoring the WEEKS of warning to get out of town by us...

In terms of oil, it's only part of the equation. The war falls under the banner of 'state-sponsored terrorism.'

Wow, you really are an idiot. BTW, you still "support" the troops who you have JUST stated are guilty of committing terrorism?

The inital goal of this war was regime change.  The use of force to change forms of government falls under 'terrorism.'

In what dictionary?

Mike pointed out that the US supports Israel, thus claiming that the US really isn't in it for the oil.  Hegemony isn't just about oil however, it is about using economic, political, and military means to maintain sole superpower status.

I can see why you like Chomsky. You both don't what the hell you're talking about.

Control of the Middle East is critical in their strategey, since the entire world depends on oil.  Israel is by far the most well-armed state in that region, including nuclear arms.  The US corporations gave the Israli's all these apache helcopters and F-16's. They support Israel and, indeed helped create Israel, as one more method to ensure control/influence over the Middle East. From the point of view of the U.S., the current state of Israel is essentially an offshore U.S. military base.

It was actually Britain and the UN who got the ball rolling --- but I'd hate to see your illogic train derailed.

There's that, and fanatical religious ideology too. America's domestic majority of fundamentalist christians (not a few of whom occupy the White House) who believe that in order for Armegeddon to happen, the Jewish Temple, which currently serves as the foundation for a crucial mosque, must be rebuilt.

And the list of things you don't have the first clue about increases by leaps and bounds.

 

Yeah, we're REAL fanatical religious zealots.

Obviously i'm not saying this is the view of all fanatical conservatives, but it's not that far off in some cases, where religious wackos that run the country use this kind of mind set . Skeptical? Frightening commentary like this:  http://www.hallindseyoracle.com/. . is an example of what this kind of thinking entails.

Wow. You really don't have a point, do you?

 

I could quote a comment from the Bill Maher show board to indicate that liberals feel that hunting Republicans is a valid sport --- but I won't.

-=Mike

[Big Ol' Smitty 0]

I liked this story from the NYT about marines in Fallujah.