What Really Happened In Fallujah 2004?

Originally posted by devilwasp
I am but on drop of bias in this sea of it...I do provide "bias" or an "opinion" but I do so in counter action to others...that way keeping a balance..

Repeating stuff right from text books( in the interest of maintaining the conclusions) serves no purpose on a forum like this and for you to think your doing ANYTHING usefully, with that being your contribution ,is truly fascinating. We are all biased but at least some of us have chosen to go off the beaten track and investigate the oddities that we came across reading all those dozens/hundreds/thousands of text books we all did. Towing the line is not a bad idea at 17 but then this is the worse forum in the world for that. I can suggest a dozen one's where you will learn stuff till it comes out your ears without ever having a argument.

Well thank you for that assesment but frankly I dont really give a damm what you think.

Well you should care what people think! Why else would you be here trying to inform people and bring about change even it's in your case just repeating , at least in this case, what your textbooks told you?

Yet again you believe your more knowledgeable in ALL areas where we both know this is not true,

I am quite happy being specific and stating that i believe i know more than you on this general topic.

I may not have your experience but I have had training and have learnt things you have not.

All i can see you doing is what 17 year old educated people do; repeat what they were told and what was marked as 'correct' on their exam papers. Nothing else can be expected of you at that age and the more educated the better indoctrinated you are having lacked the time for proper reflection. Do you understand that they aim to cram as much lies and deception into you in the shortest possible time thus making sure that 95% gets past without proper reflection in, at least the short and probably, the long term?

You are trying to raise yourself above me and claim my "disagreements" as "youthful ignorance" , a simple yet regular tactic of yours.

It's a regular tactic only when dealing with know-it-all 17 year old's who think that us old foolish people learnt absultely nothing 'new' or 'correct' in all that extra time we spent on the subject.

Now whos insulting who, I asked you to clarify your position but since you havent I will take it the way its laid : As an insult to soldiers.

I clarified my statement beneath but i guess you never bothered figuring out my original statement well enough to make use of the clarification.

"Common people" ? Do you work for the BBC political division?

I read things called ' books' and they have these 'references' to their source material if their any good. In this case i am going with Len Deigthon's views( "Blood,tears and folly") on how Britons felt as that is also the impression i got from other reading.

The common people where not as informed as you or I nowadays and it was beause of one parties unwillingness to act that caused this.

Well they knew that war was probably unavoidable and prepared accordingly ( resignation in the case of Britons) while the policitions kept saying that they could arrange peace. Who got it right despite all the lies they were told and how much of an accident was that?

IF you think he was in lie with the enemy then go ahead....I'll know what paraniod delusions to believe.

Well we can only go by the fact that he had a great deal of support in his delusion and that they all turned out to be completely wrong in thinking that Hitler was going to be stopped unless stopped by them. Now there are many ways to interpret their abject failure in doing something while they had time and the means to stop him with very little effort. If you disagree explain to me why you declare war when you have already put yourself in a very bad situation by complete inaction only to then commit to a war in defense of someone you can not even begin to defend? You explain it to me since the hundreds of books/articles i read never did explain why Hitler was not stopped in the Rhineland or anywhere in between. The best way to avoid complex questions for historians seems to simple pretend that they do not exists. This also happens to be a favour method in the 'sciences'.

"Your" leaders might have , "MY" leaders did nothing. ABOSOLUTELY NOTHING. They where used as a puppet until britain could be ready to go to war, a buffer between germany and russia.

Britain was far readier to win a war in 1936 ( Rhineland) than it was in 1939 ( Poland, when it just to reign in French actions in the Saar 'campaign') when it declare war with France to save a country that they could have better protected by Britain allying themselves with Russia ( however inconvenient and impractical that would have been). They were not serious about preventing war and thus a war happened.

You mean the fluke of the original plans falling into allied hands, no the plan drafted by General Erich von Manstein was no fluke.

The fact that it was used and that a earlier invasion of the low countries did not take place was what i was referring to. The fact is that Manstein's plan was selected mainly due to postphonements ( weather) and then finally because of earlier plans being compromised. It was in fact a AT LEAST mostly fluke, just as i said.

They did believe it would be WW1 again because they believed the germans would outflank the magionet line via brussels again like in the schlieffen plan, hence why best units of the french army where sent along with the BEF to brussels border.

The BEF they sent to France was completely mechanized and Britain built a bomber fleet ( however pathetic it turned out to be; another weird fact) with which to attack the enemy while holding a small sector in the Allied line and otherwise starving them by naval blockade. Britain was not planning on fighting the same war as that would result in casualties they knew they could not again take. In the end they took plenty due to other mistakes but it was not the intent imo.

Oh is it? Your now an expert in the matters of her majesties parliment?

I need to be to understand that Chamberlain was still more warmly welcomed the day after Churchill took office ( day after he resigned ; on the 12th of May) than Churchill was? All Chamberlain ever managed was to bring Britain closer to disaster and he still managed to be more popular among the mp's.

The entire establishment doesnt recieve all the information like the PM and the members of his cabinet, he alone makes the decsion on what to do.

The people figured it out just reading the press so one has to start wondering how far better informed people could be deceived if they did not want to be.

He was no figure head, he was in command of the british government just because he was the leader of a party does not make him a figurehead.

Being leader of a party means that you have the support of your party at least to the extent that enough of them supported you over the next guy in line to the party crown. Facts is facts and he represented the majority as the voting will indicate if you cared to check.

I am not discussing america, I'm talking about europe and frankly thats not a pleasant government to live under and frankly I am not making them the only crazy group but they where one of the worst.

Hitler was the most popular leader Germany had ever known and Germans had in in the years before the war the highest living standards in Europe. If you kept your mouth shut, on the few subjects you had to, you would have done well as people living in such countries could tell you if you asked. Police states run on the logic that silence and cooperation buys you luxury/survival( depending on culture and general wealth of nation) and since people will gladly sacrifice freedom for stability&security all forms of governments in the end go that way.

Germans on average were far happier people than Britons and that's just the facts of the matter whatever cruelties taking place in Germany.If FDR could offer the same levels of luxury he could ( and he did to a great extent) have gotten away with the same crimes and general theft of liberty.

Yeah and how many of britain where willing to sacrifice stability and security, oh and asl yourself how many of those high living people in germany 1939 where jews?

Britons were sacrificing before the war even broke out and they continue to do so till this day.I have no idea how many of those people were Jewish and i really do not understand your fascination with that question. The Jews in Germany had plenty of time to realise their situation and get out, not like the German government wasn't helping, and if the west cared there was plenty of time to save them.

Hitler was a complete maniac, he killed his entire family and had his best general shot for crying out loud.

He killed his entire family? Had his best general shot? All news to me but feel free to set me strait!

Oh and the rest of your drivel you can quite frankly forget about....its not worth commenting on...if you think I'm arogant go ahead...ha the nazis would have accepted jews in the 30's...sure they would have!

Well whether it's drivel or not i expect you to put your disgust in words so that i may point out why your coming to the wrong conclusions you clearly are. I said nothing about Germans accepting Jewish people in the 30's so where did that come from? I made it clear that there was ample opportunity to realise the danger and get the hell out if you were part of the minorities that were so openly discriminated against later

They(chamberlin) thought germanyt was no threat so therefore took no action.

And if that was only true i could call him a complete moron but since he never thought that i give him credit for far more logical assumptions.

Coming from a man who thinks sharpnel can sink a nuclear aicraft carrier carrier....I will take your words with a hold full of salt.

You can spice it with whatever you like as long as your willing to include the facts/references/sources/opinions that have you thinking what you do. What have you in fact read beside school text books that has a certain requirement towards you getting points? Is that indoctrination or learning?

Mabye you should do the same and not be hypocritical in this regard.

I have listened and learned an additional 8 years more than you have so you do not get to point fingers at me; that luxury is reserved for people who have the advantage of time over me. Do you really believe that at 17 you have had time for anything other than learning? Do you not understand that time brings time for reflection that mere 'cramming' of facts can not result in?

I know this subject if you think its overconfident then fair enough thats your opinion but in reality your being entirely hypocritical in critisising me.

I believe you are and i will criticise you for thinking yourself well enough informed to engage me so directly assuming that i never saw the text books you did. Your assumption is basically that i skipped basic history education and just moved on to crazy conspiracy material. If you so wish i can recite all that propaganda you are so familiar with and tell you not only why i disagree with those 'facts' but what the likely motives are for each deception is.

Also another thing, you may have hid your mistakes in your youth by not writing them down so that it doesnt serve "as testament to your youthful ignorance" but I am diffrent, if I make a mistake in writing or in speech then I will accept that mistake.

Well i have pride and i do not like looking the ignorant fool so i set out to prepare myself before i engage in discussion. I understand that that is no sure defense against ignorance but some combination of pride and lack of confidence( assuming one's fallibility as more than a theoretical possibility) sure kept me from engaging my superiors in insulting language for a very long time. The same can simply not be said for you and you will have to suffer the consequences ( as you surely must have already) of your actions if you persist.

I might drivel on for years and then find out I was wrong all along,

You will will go on as now but if you can be open to new things, and never let pride get in the way, you will likely learn much faster than i did.

I will happily change my position once I find out its wrong but frankly if I believe otherwise I will know I stuck by my guns and done what I thought was right.

How can you know what is 'right' at 17 when i am so unsure about so many things(specifically history) at 26? I can't even remember what exactly i believed at 17 ( if had to change my mind so many times since) but i know it was not much different from what i got told with very little reflection yet possible on my side.

No matter what I look like in the end because after all, learn by your mistakes....dont sweep them under the rug.

Well learning is done by silently reading and occasionally asking for clarification and that is not what you are doing here imo . In the end you do not know what my mistakes where but i will have yours on record to destroy your credibility at my leisure if i in the future chose to be vindictive or angry in general. I just think one is best served spending the first few years quietly building on your general knowledge before being in a forum situation where it's so easy to get trapped making snap judgements that your pride will then require you to defend long beyond honesty and practicality. Been there , don't that and had to apologise for my arrogance.

To sum up: Why not just learn from my mistakes instead of your own? Stick around but leave the picking sides( on at least this topic) for later.

Stellar

Damocles

you're a pretty reasonable guy. We agree, to some extent, on the idea of what constitutes proof. You have more sympathy for the soldiers, because you were a soldier; I have more sympathy for the civilians, because I am a civilian.

But this is why, again and again, I have to come back to the REASONS for the war, and they are an absolute crock. Before I get on to that, however, I have to say that imho the Iraqis were better off under even Saddam than they are now. That's a pretty bold thing to say, and I'm NOT trying to make out he was any kind of a saint. What it does mean, however, is that a) it shows just how bad things are now and b) things are not black and white, good and evil. But just to really emphasise the point, Saddam was a nasty murderous thug who deserves everything he gets... but he was also, according to his lights, a patriot, and you, I think, can respect that.

First, what were the good things about Saddam? Well, first, he was a secularist. The Sunnis and Shiites were actually pretty cool with each other under his regime, and the excesses of Islam were repressed. After he was overthrown, all that changed.

Secondly, before sanctions, Iraqis overall (with exceptions - the marsh Arabs and the Kurds, I'm not dodging this: but if you know your history you'll know that the US stitched up the Kurds and that they're thoroughly repressed by our friends and allies in Turkey to this day) were doing very well by regional standards. While he made damn sure his own nest was feathered, he also made sure that the people of Iraq were fed, housed, educated and had some health care. One of the main indicators of how well a society is doing is infant mortality rates and they were, before the West imposed sanctions, the best in the region and better than some US inner cities. Women were also far better treated than they are since the 'liberation'. I don't know if you ever see the Iraqi girl blog by 'Riverbend' but she can no longer leave the house alone, she can't do her job in computing any more, she can't wear jeans or go unveiled unless she wants to be threatened with rape... it's not good.

I also have Iraqi friends over here (one of whom is a Kurd - they're both very good friends) who give me their take on things, and the situation is not good at home. One had two family members killed in Baghdad last month. Security is just gone.

The fact - which may be uncomfortable for you but I think you can face it if you want - is that the US invaded Iraq primarily to get control of the oil. Let's face it, the other stuff didn't stand up, did it? When Bush was saying Saddam was linked to 9/11 (and don't get me started on that), he never produced any evidence. Linking him to BinLaden never made any sense to me either (OBL being a Wahhabi ideologue and Saddam being a secularist) and so it has proved - although it's said that OBL has given his followers the ok to join the insurgency.

At any rate, Saddam had nothing to do with 9/11 or AlQaeda. He was NO threat to anyone. There were NO WMDs. So why invade?

Well, let's see what the US has done since invading. The oil was supposed to finance reconstruction but the insurgents are being pretty successful at sabotaging the industry. Oddly enough, this is kind of a bonus for the oil companies - they all turned in record profits last year, did you notice? At any rate, 'enduring' (don't they just LOVE that word) bases are being built in the deep desert and the US is spending a BILLION dollars on the biggest, most heavily fortified embassy in the world.

This is so NOT about liberation, quite the opposite.

The government that is in place is riven by factions, which makes it laughably easy for the US to manipulate. US troops have been asked to leave specific areas. Do you think they've taken any notice? Do you think those deep desert bases are going to be abandoned, no matter how nicely the locals ask?

We also have death squads at work in the country. What is emerging from widely scattered reports is a picture of one or two rather secretive elements in the police - which are extremely well-equipped and headed by ex-torturers from Saddam's day - are going out and rounding up people by the dozen, and executing them. This lot are backed by the US as the 'Salvador option'.

What is also becoming clear is that, since the Iraqis have not welcomed invaders by strewing flowers everywhere, and are proving unmanageable, options of partitioning the country are being considered. In case you think this is far-fetched, that is exactly what happened in Cyprus in the sixties, a policy that was driven by the US and UK in tandem (they wanted to maintain Cyprus as a base for NATO forces at all costs - especially if those costs were borne by the locals). As it happens, much of the oil is in Kurdish areas. If they can be bought off and a Sunni/Shia split encouraged, the country can be balkanised, the oil-rich areas exploited and the rest left to rot. There is every indication that PSYOPS and black ops are at work in the country to foment sectarian violence. Who do you think blew up that big mosque a while ago? And did you hear about an incident in which our (UK) troops used a tank to bust out from jail two of our soldiers who had been arrested by the Iraqi police? The soldiers had been driving around, DRESSED AS ARABS, in a car with a trunk full of EXPLOSIVES.

There's lots more. The production sharing agreements (PSAs) that determine how much money Iraq gets from its oil production give everything to the oil companies and naff-all to the Iraqis. Bremer, during his imperial proconsul reign, sold off the rights to all sorts of things (telecomms, water, and so on) to US companies who can now - if they can survive - make money from Iraq. Did you know it's now illegal for Iraqis to save seed corn? They're supposed to buy all their corn and wheat from Monsanto, who make seed that is resistant to weedkiller but is only good for one generation, so farmers have to buy from them every year.

Unemployment is massive now. You saw for yourself the demonstration where the Iraqis were chanting (in rather good English) "we want jobs!" I don't believe that was staged for the cameras, and I certainly hope you don't either.

So I hope I've given you enough evidence to consider the idea that not only are the Iraqis probably worse off than they were even 3 years ago (when sanctions were biting) but that the war was waged for utterly cynical reasons. There was no aggression. That makes EVERYTHING done from the moment the first bomb dropped a war crime. That's serious, and it's a point you're not really engaging with.

All the best,

Richard.

First of all, I'd just like to address Devilwasp.... Wasp, for a commie, you don't half seem right winged these days mate

Now for the serious part.

There's a lot of people on here who LOVE to harp on about the anti-war crowd. Yes, a lot of the anti-war people ARE total sheep, just like the many 'true believers' here on ATS, who think the sun shines out of Bush's Arse.

But, I'll tell you something that will hopefully make you think for a moment.

Let's take...............oh, what the hell........ XPhiles, you're my fave closet-fascist on ATS, so we'll use you as an example.

Lets ASSUME (and I stress assume, just in case the Stars and Stripes Domination Posse starting going on about the US Empire never falling etc.), that the US gets invaded (Red Dawn, yall). So, with the nation fighting on its own turf, and the Armed Forces in dissarray, the invaders come to XPhiles home town..... but they cannot risk going into the streets, because it may cost them many hundreds of casualties.

So, to recap for those at the back, this town in the US is under siege, and the enemy are apprehensive about going it urban style.

Then they call in a 'special' strike. WP, Napalm, Anthrax, whatever, to clear away the potential insurgent army waiting for them, only, they have actually targeted civillians in their efforts to get the enemy.

Now, I don't want XPhiles to think I am picking on him (he knows I wuvs him really), so at this point I will address it to ALL you pro war types...... Imagine YOU are among the victims, or a relative is among the victims....

Doesn't seem so nice when you translate it to home soil huh?

And I wonder how many of you have ACTUALLY seen what WP does to the human body?

Some of you should know that we dont hate this war just because of why it happened.... we hate what HAS happened during it. I challenge anyone not to feel sickened by the sight of a corpse thats been hit by WP.... Everyone I showed the images to either said "Jesus!", or "My God", and while I am bordering on the sociopathic these days, even I felt sorry for the people who died by WP when I heard what their final moments would have been like.

Anyway, with that unpleasant imagery presented to you, wrapped in NBC protective gear, I take my leave.....


................................................



OH, and I almost forgot... some of you may decide to start saying "oh you know sweet FA about the military". So, I will just say that three of my uncles are ex military, and my grandfather was in WW2 and Korea, and I was brought up reading about warfare, so yes, I know a bit.

But even with this military history coursing through my veins..... I am still anti-war...... strange huh? Go figure... and no, I do not dishonour my relatives.... I am proud of them.

Dulce Et Dacorum Est, Pro Patria Mori.... most TRUE veterans will tell you that idea is total BS.....

[edit on 14-4-2006 by Daystar]

Seems like every week in the news a insurgent blows himself up in a crowd of people of innocent arabic people, but i have yet to see any of the anti-war crowd call them baby killers. Or Saddam gassing the kurds, I am sure some kids were killed during that also.

Originally posted by StellarX
Repeating stuff right from text books

There is no text book to life nor is there a text book to ATS but if you would kindly point me in the direction of it I would be happy to see if I have accidently qouted something from it.

Well you should care what people think!

Thing is I do care what people think, just not you though...

I am quite happy being specific and stating that i believe i know more than you on this general topic.

So you know what really happened in fallujah 2004 without ever being there? I would say we are both equal on that front since neither or us are there nor near there though I think I am nearer since I am floating off the coast of spain at the moment.

Do you understand that they aim to cram as much lies and deception into you in the shortest possible time thus making sure that 95% gets past without proper reflection in, at least the short and probably, the long term?

Your telling me that physics, mechanical and electrical engineering is wrong?Oook....care to tell me how it worked this morning when I worked on the ships radio system?

It's a regular tactic only when dealing with know-it-all 17 year old's who think that us old foolish people learnt absultely nothing 'new' or 'correct' in all that extra time we spent on the subject.

Is it foolish for a 17 year old to think he knows some things or shall you be the judge of what I know?
No dont bother answering theres no point since as you said before the object of older people teaching is to fill me with 95% lies.....so that means your lieing to...

I clarified my statement beneath but i guess you never bothered figuring out my original statement well enough to make use of the clarification.

Lol you clarified it beneath? No you said "its in plain english " thats not clarification thats ignoring the question.

I read things called ' books' and they have these 'references' to their source material if their any good. In this case i am going with Len Deigthon's views( "Blood,tears and folly") on how Britons felt as that is also the impression i got from other reading.

:O
Wait you mean those things full of lies and things that dont tell the truth like V equals I times R?
WOw never read them before....

Well they knew that war was probably unavoidable and prepared accordingly ( resignation in the case of Britons) while the policitions kept saying that they could arrange peace. Who got it right despite all the lies they were told and how much of an accident was that?

Uhh the goverment said : "War is coming, germany is a sleeping beast" if you dont recall mr winsons speaches in the commons...
That war was no accident, it was the bad call of one man ,which I have flamed so I must admit apologise .

Well we can only go by the fact that he had a great deal of support in his delusion and that they all turned out to be completely wrong in thinking that Hitler was going to be stopped unless stopped by them.

His great deal of support was because MP's didnt want another war, but hey that would be counter productive to thier original "restrict rights" idea by the government yes no?

Britain was far readier to win a war in 1936 ( Rhineland) than it was in 1939 ( Poland, when it just to reign in French actions in the Saar 'campaign') when it declare war with France to save a country that they could have better protected by Britain allying themselves with Russia ( however inconvenient and impractical that would have been). They were not serious about preventing war and thus a war happened.

Mabye you did not read about the discusions between polish and russian governments?
The russian army was prepared to go and defend poland BUT the polish refused it fearing the russians would invade and take over poland.

The fact that it was used and that a earlier invasion of the low countries did not take place was what i was referring to.

Exscuse me? You where talking about the plan was a fluke, I just proved that was wrong....are you denying this?

The BEF they sent to France was completely mechanized and Britain built a bomber fleet ( however pathetic it turned out to be; another weird fact) with which to attack the enemy while holding a small sector in the Allied line and otherwise starving them by naval blockade. Britain was not planning on fighting the same war as that would result in casualties they knew they could not again take. In the end they took plenty due to other mistakes but it was not the intent imo.

And what weapons in WW2 proved to be interesting weapons? TANKS! bullet resistant and mobile, be a perfect weapon against entrenched infantry in open countryside. The magnionet line was built incase another german WW1 style attack hence why the BEF and france guarded the area where germany would most likely attack from: Brussels . IE where they done it last time.

I need to be to understand that Chamberlain was still more warmly welcomed the day after Churchill took office ( day after he resigned ; on the 12th of May) than Churchill was? All Chamberlain ever managed was to bring Britain closer to disaster and he still managed to be more popular among the mp's.

Chamberlin helped build the country but frankly he was no war leader, churchil WAS a war leader.

The people figured it out just reading the press so one has to start wondering how far better informed people could be deceived if they did not want to be.

The press was told what it needed to know, not the other way around.

Being leader of a party means that you have the support of your party at least to the extent that enough of them supported you over the next guy in line to the party crown. Facts is facts and he represented the majority as the voting will indicate if you cared to check.

Yeah hence why he was PM, but that doesnt make him a figure head and I represent the fact your bringing him down because he was a leader.

Hitler was the most popular leader Germany had ever known and Germans had in in the years before the war the highest living standards in Europe.

Geee I wonder why? In the 1930's the nazi's controlled the schools and education, I wonder WHY they where so popular? The nazis rebuilt the country with varios schemes which all seemed like great ideas but frankly it overall was a deception of the highest order.

If you kept your mouth shut, on the few subjects you had to, you would have done well as people living in such countries could tell you if you asked.

Would I have survived if I was jewish? Had a birth defect? Been unfit or "unhealthy" or "unpure"? No...most likely not.
And dont tell me when to keep my mouth shut, you dont out rank me.

Germans on average were far happier people than Britons and that's just the facts of the matter whatever cruelties taking place in Germany.

I wonder which side was being bombed and starved? Britons or germans?
I wonder which side was making the majority of the country stronger while eliminating "the weaker" of the country?
Tell me....would I have survived in nazi germany had I been born blind?

Britons were sacrificing before the war even broke out and they continue to do so till this day.

Sacrificing what? Freedom? In "todays" day and age we've been living under terrorism for almost 3 decades.

He killed his entire family?

Nazi bunker? 1945? German surrender?

Had his best general shot?

He was giving him the choice of either shooting or cyanide pill, rommel took the pill.
My mistake on cause of death.

How could they get out? The nazi's controlled the routes in and out, they stopped any jews getting out..

And if that was only true i could call him a complete moron but since he never thought that i give him credit for far more logical assumptions.

Oh he did not think that germany was a big enough threat to send the worlds largest navy to stop the germans?

You can spice it with whatever you like as long as your willing to include the facts/references/sources/opinions that have you thinking what you do. What have you in fact read beside school text books that has a certain requirement towards you getting points? Is that indoctrination or learning?

The facts refrences, sources and opinions that you have yet to provide about the sunburn sinking a nimitz carrier but hey just keep going on about rogue waves and mabye we'll belive you.

I have listened and learned an additional 8 years more than you have so you do not get to point fingers at me; that luxury is reserved for people who have the advantage of time over me.

So because your older you get to treat me as inferior, ok sure I'm ok with the whole "superiority" complex you seem to have but hey. Age means nothing when you waste it.

Do you really believe that at 17 you have had time for anything other than learning?

YES.

Do you not understand that time brings time for reflection that mere 'cramming' of facts can not result in?

I wouldnt call learning by hand "cramming" nor traveling the world "cramming".

I believe you are and i will criticise you for thinking yourself well enough informed to engage me so directly assuming that i never saw the text books you did.

Unless you went to the marine college at south tyneside I believe you have not.

Your assumption is basically that i skipped basic history education and just moved on to crazy conspiracy material.

No you didnt miss basic history, you just chose parts of it.

If you so wish i can recite all that propaganda you are so familiar with and tell you not only why i disagree with those 'facts' but what the likely motives are for each deception is.

Lol pot calling kettle when it comes to propaganda, who is right and who is wrong...thats not for us to decide..

Well i have pride and i do not like looking the ignorant fool so i set out to prepare myself before i engage in discussion.

Obviosly this is not so in the sunburn thread.

The same can simply not be said for you and you will have to suffer the consequences ( as you surely must have already) of your actions if you persist.

Persist to believe that I am right and not believe you...no sorry I will not lower myself to the standards you provide me. I set my standards and I live by them, pride is imeterial when learning...pride comes from doing...not from typing.

You will will go on as now

As now like proving that its impossible for a small missile to sink a massive warship?

How can you know what is 'right' at 17 when i am so unsure about so many things(specifically history) at 26?

Because I define what is right and wrong in my mind , if you are unsure what is right and wrong then I suggest you clarify your position before you engage in discussion.

Well learning is done by silently reading and occasionally asking for clarification and that is not what you are doing here imo .

Then you learned by watching, not doing.

In the end you do not know what my mistakes where but i will have yours on record to destroy your credibility at my leisure if i in the future chose to be vindictive or angry in general.

Making mistakes does not destroy your credibility, esspeciallyif you are able to accept them. Be vindictive and be be angry, I cant stop them and frankly it will show us more about you than I.

To sum up: Why not just learn from my mistakes instead of your own? Stick around but leave the picking sides( on at least this topic) for later.

Because I wont learn from your mistakes, I will learn from mine.
You made YOUR mistakes, only YOU will truely learn from them...but I will learn from mine more.

muddz:

Seems like every week in the news a insurgent blows himself up in a crowd of people of innocent arabic people, but i have yet to see any of the anti-war crowd call them baby killers. Or Saddam gassing the kurds, I am sure some kids were killed during that also.

Every DAY it is happening. And yes, they ARE baby-killers. Baby-killers who have the perfect breeding ground in a Wild West Shootout that used to be called Iraq before they were invaded.

And violence begets violence.

Fallujah, to me, was almost surreal. I mean, the US WARNED of the invasion for a few days, so that many civilians and the SMART insurgents just split. Packed up and left. The idiot fundamentalists with martyr complexes and the people who figured they would \\\"ride it out\\\" or who just had nowhere to go stayed.

Did they deserve to die? I can\\\'t say. Maybe those guys who strung up those poor contractors on the bridge deserved some rough justice, but do you restore order in a town by rolling in with armored personnel carriers and trained killers and just continually smash the town with a steel fist for a few days and then just hope it will all work out?

I guess the true test is how is Fallujah now? What kind of security can an Iraqi who lives there expect these days?


And Saddam gassing the Kurds happened in 1982. Over 20 years ago. In the interim, your government did BILLIONS of dollars of business with Saddam, possibly even selling him components that helped him create that same gas. I am not making that up, it is public fact.

So why the sudden outrage now? Were you actively doing anything about it in the last 24 years? Writing a congressperson? Boycotting goods from companies that did business with a mass murderer? Talking about it with your friends and peers?

Would you even be talking about it if your idiot President had not brought it up ad nauseum to justify a war that has rained down 40 9-11s upon Iraqi heads? I use the number fifty because if 3000 people died in 9-11 and 120,000 have died in Iraq so far, and both are misdirected and unneccessary and illegal terrorist attacks, then it is solid math.

What really happened in Fallujah? It was intense ground fighting approved by both the Iraqi interim government and the U.S. military. Yes, civilians died as they always do in war. Fact of life people. Yes, I realize that an apology has been rendered by Rich but the fact remains I donot appreciate my brother, myself, my sisters, father and uncles being called baby killers. Enjoy your freedom to toss out insults to I'll paraphrase you to get a rise out of people, we paid the price for it scamper so you don't have to. Soulja why don't you try talking to soldiers who were actually there if you really want to know what happened. My brother was there supporting the Marines and he knows of no non-combantants being deliberatly shot. I realize talking to veterans of Fallujah may not have occured to you but I did. Our soldiers, sailors, airmen and marines aren't mindless killing machines and no we aren't brutalized as was suggested earlier in this thread. By the way did it ever occur to anyone that no one wishes for peace more devoutly then the military? Think about it, no military member I know jumped up and down for joy saying oh goody I get to go to war. In fact, many indeed all the ones I know were praying that it would be averted. Am I pro-war or pro-Bush; no not really. I am however, pro-US/UK forces and thank them for doing a tough job.

Gallopinghordes:

Yes, I realize that an apology has been rendered by Rich but the fact remains I donot appreciate my brother, myself, my sisters, father and uncles being called baby killers.

Whatever. If your brother, sisters, father and uncles were in the Army and they caused the death of innocent women and children, then THEY ARE BABY-KILLERS. Pure and simple. Blah blah I was following orders, blah blah I didn’t realize that it was like this, blah blah I was trained to shoot not to ask questions….

Murder is murder, whether or not you are formally trained by your country or not. It would be different it was a draft, but these are volunteers we’re talking about.

You shoot an innocent person, you are a murderer. By accident or by design, makes no difference. By dropping a bomb from 5000 ft or from a point blank shot.

And fyi I have never seen:

1) Thou Shalt Not Kill *

*except in circumstances where your country tells you to

So you might want to tell them to dress light for the afterlife, seeing as how that’s a doozy of a Commandment to break, huh?

This is what I think happened in Fallujah.

Insurgents or Terrorists or whatever were using the city as a base of operatiion.

The US wanted to put a stop to it

The US went in started kicking ass

US politicians got involved and gave an opportunity for the other side to get away

The US troops acted a millions more times more disciplined and safety conscious towards the civilian population then the other side

That is what happened in Fallujah in 2004

Well I watched the movie.....

Ok, these are the notes I took by watching the movie. You have to remember a movie has a director and an editor, who have a point of view. Does this make this movie the truth???? No. It is an interpretation of what this person put together. There is truth in this, and it was shocking to see some of this. But I come away that this movie was not fair and balanced.



The notes I took as the movie was going……………..

Demonstrators took down barbed wire and closed in on a US military position at a school. They were warned to go away. They did not, and US troops opened up fire. Why would you want to antagonize a military that is trying to keep a safe perimeter. They also said demonstrators, and not peaceful demonstrators. Could they have been throwing rocks or shooting.

A few people were hurt or killed trying to get in the car. Was the fire fight over??? Why did not the people right across the school come out with a white flag to get the person to the hospital. Instead on jumping into a car in a fire fight. That is asking for hostile reaction from US troops.

Then an Ambulance went into the fire fight and was shot at. Past uses of ambulances by enemy forces have been used.

As hostile forces then later attacked US forces. The US used patrols to seek the out those enemy at this point. Going into homes etc. Taking suspects in.

After the big battle of Fallujah. Many houses were destroyed. Most of them by the US forces. But some I bet by the other side. But the US gets all the blame. The US government will pay you back for the damage done. And yes I would be pissed if my house was blown up. But will the other side foreign fighters pay for the houses they broke????

Many resident did not have means to leave the battle for Fallujah and were in the battle. In war people die. That is a truth. That is what a military does is break and kill stuff. The US and the other side killed people. The civilians suffered.

At one point an Iraqi says his brother was killed and a US soldier took his wallet and ID. If this is true then that is awful. I think it is most likely not true. But there are non ethical people everywhere.


A family tried to hide in a trench. Maybe the US forces in the far off distance saw them , and dropped bombs. Civilians and insurgents look alike in a war zone, when one side refuses to wear a military uniform.
Why aren’t the civilians waving white flags or hanging white flags for safety????

Bullet holes are shown everywhere. Are all those from US troops??? No, but the US gets all the blame for it.

It was sad to see the doctor talk about all the wounded people at the hospital.

One man claimed that US troops mutilated bodies, but he did not see it. He could be blinded by his hatred in this situation. He seemed honest though, but I still find it hard to believe.

At one point a man said the US fired on a hospital. He also said the insurgents and civilians were being mixed. Were there shots from the hospital at the US troops for the enemy. I mean if the insurgents or foreign fighters were firing at the US troops at the hospital. All bets are off, and the Hospital is a legitimate target. This was not clarified in the movie.

It was sad to see into that one boys eye at a hospital and his injuries.

Then the part of who was fighting the Americans. A man said no foreign fighter were there…….Does he have any proof??? He said laborers, doctors and people at the hospital fought the Americans. There is the hospital again. Were there shots directed at the Americans from a hospital??????

And in summary many people died.
Many of them innocent civilians.



Overall it is a sad situation. George Bush’s policy here is not the greatest, and that is an understatement.

My question is this. Why are not countries in the Arab area asking the US if they can replace the US forces as a Peace keeping security force to help the Iraqis???? This would get the foreign fighters that don’t like US fighters home. The people that think the US want to own Iraq to think otherwise. Get the American troops home. This could bring some stability so reconstruction can begin, so Iraq can get out of this stalemate of death.

Originally posted by sbob
My question is this. Why are not countries in the Arab area asking the US if they can replace the US forces as a Peace keeping security force to help the Iraqis???? This would get the foreign fighters that don’t like US fighters home. The people that think the US want to own Iraq to think otherwise. Get the American troops home. This could bring some stability so reconstruction can begin, so Iraq can get out of this stalemate of death.

Dear Sbob, the are a few answers to your question and none of them are too complicated. First of all, the islam, as you know, comes in a few different flavors that don't like to co-exist. One example is sunni and shiite. There are also wahhabi and others. What you refer to as "Arab area" includes a few different denominations. Then there is Iran which is not Arabic but muslim nontheless. Should it participate, too? Guess what, it would more than happy to and would happily finish off the rest of the Sunnis in Iraq. On top of this, does the US want Iran in Iraq??? Does the US want Syria in Iraq? And these are major countries. Smaller ones won't do. Do you see how absurd your proposition is? Iran is not asking because they don't want to make themselves look stupid. Syria in itself is almost at war with the West. Saudi can't be bothered, they have a dificult situation in their own country and don't need to be bogged down in yet another civil war.

On top of that, does the US want a resurgence of fundamentalist islamic unity with clearly anty-US motives? Huh?

[edit on 18-4-2006 by Aelita]

I was just shooting out an idea, it doesn't mean it is a good one.

But my point was if everyone one wants the USA out Iraq, then why isn't the world stepping up to the plate with any ideas? Because I believe Bush doesn't have any ideas besides staying with the current stratergy.

And if you have any ideas of trying to get Iraq on track let me know.

I really think the more important part of my post was about the movie, and not a lark of an idea. I know there are many forms of Islam, so no need to educate me.

Even though my spelling needs some work.

Originally posted by sbob
But my point was if everyone one wants the USA out Iraq, then why isn't the world stepping up to the plate with any ideas?

That would mean paying a very steep price in resources and lives. Most of our allies are moving their forces from Iraq, gradually. Every single given country in the world has less resouces than the US (which in itself puts it on the credit card), and even less desire to pay dearly for the cleanup of the mess we have created. You can't blame them for lack of idealism.

Aelita -

On top of that, does the US want a resurgence of fundamentalist islamic unity with clearly anty-US motives? Huh?

Well, it's going the right way about getting it. Two Islamic countries invaded, Iran now in the crosshairs (I'd say we'll see ground troops in the country before the end of the year, though I could be wrong)...

Did you know that after several decades of the Shah's rule, with US-trained secret police (SAVAK) torturing and disappearing people on a daily basis, such that the Ayatollah seemed like a good idea, the Iraqis referred to the US embassy as "the nest of spies"?

And why was Mossadegh overthrown in the first place? He wanted to nationalise the oilfields, kick out the multinationals, and use the oil wealth to benefit the people of his country. Kind of like what Hugo Chavez is doing now. Watch out, Hugo! There's a carrier group in the Caribbean right now, flexing US muscle. But I digress.

If the US wanted to unite Islamic opinion against it, what better way than to invade a bunch of Islamic countries on the flimsiest of pretexts, install puppet governments (again), torture people and even publish photographs of same?

But actually, what comes across is that the US is going to pursue its agenda no matter what, with the barest nod to the figleaves of 'legality' and 'spreading democracy'.

And sbob:

After the big battle of Fallujah. Many houses were destroyed. Most of them by the US forces. But some I bet by the other side. But the US gets all the blame. The US government will pay you back for the damage done.

How are they going to compensate the woman who had both her children killed by a sniper (head shots on children... niiiice...)?

Also, there's no indication that the US' compensation, in those rare cases when it is paid out, is anything other than derisory.

to all of the ones out there that are "ashamed of my country" what are you doing to change it? Sitting behind the keyboard and bitching about everything that is not going YOUR way? That is really proactive of you. If you would spend half the time on writing your congress or senate reps that you do bashing solders and making assumtions about them you might actually make a differance.
"babykillers" was written with anger, the appology was not sincere. I was a soldier and being called that is just as bad as anyother racist remark.
To all those out there that think the military is just brainless killing machines. You can enlist for 2 years. For a desk job that will keep you far away from the frontlines. Try it you just might like it. Then come back ant tell me that all I was, was a brainless killing machine. Or if you are afraid that you might have to murder civilians why dont you go to your nearest VFW and get to know a soldier personnally before you condem us. Alot of the language in this post reminds me of segregation from the 50s. go back and substute "blacks" for "soldeirs" and see how some of you sound.

democles and seekerof, HOO-YA

[edit on 20-4-2006 by ultralo1]

Damocles:

oh, and if we're quoting the bible...try this one "judge not lest ye be judged"

I don't fear it.



ultralo1:

Alot of the language in this post reminds me of segregation from the 50s. go back and substute "blacks" for "soldeirs" and see how some of you sound.

? I see absolutely no correlation at all.

Or if you are afraid that you might have to murder civilians why dont you go to your nearest VFW and get to know a soldier personnally before you condem us.

The truth is you MAY HAVE TO murder civilians. It's part of the job. So knowing it going in means you are prepared to do it. So in your mind you need to prepare for the eventuality that you may have to take an innocent's life. Or accidentally kill a friendly.




[edit on 20-4-2006 by Jakomo]

Damocles:

yes...we ALL know that if we fire a round, it may miss its target and hit someone else. but to say we may HAVE to take an innocents life is plain ignorance and inflamatory.

Newsflash: People who join the military are not pacifists. Give a man or woman a rifle and training to kill and sometimes they will do SICK and TERRIBLE things (see My Lai). You TRAIN people to be killers, to REACT and not THINK, and sometimes they will turn into murderers.

Have you ever heard of someone coming back from war and having a different personality? Someone who is severely affected by the things they have done and who can't live with it anymore?

if some kid comes running down the street at me unarmed and its obvious hes not wearing a bomb vest or some such...theres nothing that says i have to kill him. if he comes running at me with an ak47 adn wont put it down when warned to, he's not innocent.

What if it's HIS COUNTRY? What if it's HIS NEIGHBORHOOD? YOU are the INVADING NATION. You have killed 100,000 of his countrymen. You being there in the first place CREATES the situation.

i have to wonder if some of you have ANY idea what it is to be a soldier,

Yes, quite a few of us do, thanks.

i mean really. find me ONE serviceman who's orders were to kill unarmed civillians and is willing to testify to it and maybe then ill give you some respect for your credibility. until then in my book some of you are just paranoid. ill stop short of using the term "whack jobs" because i dotn feel the need to start name calling.

Ok, here.

www.washingtonpost.com...

"It's almost impossible to fight a war in which engagements occur in urban areas [and] to avoid civilian casualties," Sewall, whose center is a branch of Harvard's Kennedy School of Government that focuses on issues such as genocide, failed states and military intervention, said in a telephone interview.

"In a conflict like Iraq, where civilian perceptions are as important as the number of weapons caches destroyed, assessing the civilian harm must become a part of the battle damage assessment process if you're going to fight a smart war," she said.

Want me to paraphrase?

"Yes we know we will kill civilians, but we try to minimize it."

Again, they KNOW they will kill civilians but they do it anyway.

"I wholeheartedly believe the vast majority of civilians are killed by the insurgency," particularly by improvised bombs, said Col. Michael Denning, the top air officer for the 2nd Marine Division, which is leading the fight against insurgents in Anbar province.

He believes the majority are killed by the insurgency. The remainder are killed by U.S. troops.


www.why-war.com...

"We were told there were no friendly forces," said [Army Private Matt] Guckenheimer, an assistant gunner with the 10th Mountain Division at Fort Drum. "If there was anybody there, they were the enemy. We were told specifically that if there were women and children to kill them."

Need more?

Thanks for playing!


-jakomo

ps. Heroes are not the ones who carry rifles, they're the ones who refuse to .

jackomo,
You really know what it is to be a soldier or you just have an IDEA of what it is.

You are right I was TRAINED to kill people. I spent an entire 7 days learning how to safeley handle a weapon, keep it clean and serviceble and to keep it from shooting someone that I did not mean to. I spent a few days on hand to hand combat. So I guess that you should consider me a trained killer, a one man unstoppable killing machine. Or you can find out about the rest of my training. 2 weeks of intinsve first aid and emmergency trama. Daily education on proper military protocal. Daily education on being a resposible person, taking care of people needing aid, reading maps so If I got lost I could find my way home, learning military history from people who made it.

From reding your last post I am beginning to wonder if your veiw points come from watching movies instead of first hand knowledge. I noticed that you are from Quebec so I understand that it must be hard for you to find someone with first hand knowledge, but I am sure If you try you can find someone who is or has been a soldier. Because Iam telling you in the nicest way possible that If you keep quoting movie titles as your referance source your veiw of the real world will be extremly "WHACKED". Movies are for entertainment, not historically correct documentaries, hell for that fact even correct about anything.

YES civilians get killed, It happens it is a regretable truth of WAR. The US stives to keep these numbers at A minimum. Will it ever be zero,? probbably not. But WE TRY TO KEEP IT AT A MINIMUM. enough said on that one.

PS back at you, IF it was not for the heros that carried the rifles then you would not have the right to refuse to carry.

Canada Fought well to keep itself from being part of the US. Do you think the fighting was worth it?

[edit on 20-4-2006 by ultralo1]

[edit on 20-4-2006 by ultralo1]

Man...I just watched the first half of that video.

Now, I know there are at least 2 sides to every story, but come on. They even said from the jump that "we don't do body counts," and I see these people telling stories of death and destruction. I swear, every dude on there talked about his wife and kids being killed.

People get on here and run their mouths about this is war. No, this is a massacre. This isn't some clash of military might where guys are valiantly defending the country, with some atrocities here and there. This is the baddest military in the world stomping on a 3rd world country. The worst part of it is that it's the same criminal rat turds (read: politicians) doing all the other dirt who are ultimately responsible for this.

How people got behind supporting this type of action against a country that didn't even attack us in any way is WAY beyond me...propaganda must be off the chain these days...

Damocles,

if I can ask a personal question, when were you in the army? Did you serve in Vietnam? Now you know I'm no soldier, but my impression is that the kind of war that is now being fought in Iraq is not like anything the US has been involved in since Vietnam. Occupying a country for a long period of time is, I think, different from doing your job, and moving on.

This is becoming a long-drawn-out conflict and I don't think it's doing the US any good. UK soldiers are starting to comment unfavourably on the professionalism of their US counterparts.... and one soldier has refused to go back because he's sickened by what he sees happening out there. This article is from The Telegraph, the most right-wing of the UK quality dailies; and the journalist, Max Hastings, is as gung-ho as they come:

Here is a quote from a British security contractor in Iraq about his American counterparts: "I hate those bastards more than the scumbag insurgents." A British colonel recently returned from a tour in the country said that, in our next war, he would sooner fight alongside the Russians than the US.
This is another quote from a British security contractor: "The American way is not my way. I don't mind a scrap but I draw the line at mooning the enemy and inviting him to shoot at my backside, and that's virtually what the Yanks are doing. I'm also convinced that many Americans hate the Iraqis, not just the insurgents but all Iraqis… What a mess."

Those last lines are taken from a rather good new book about the experience of Iraq today, Highway To Hell, written by an ex-SAS man who signs himself John Geddes. My point in all the above, is to show that Ben Griffin, the former SAS soldier who vents his dismay about what is happening to Iraq in today's Sunday Telegraph, is not a lone voice.

It is just not realistic to accuse the Telegraph of liberal bias. It is known to be the mouthpiece for MI5 and MI6, who have planted stories (true and false) in it for decades. Likewise Hastings is one of the most pro-war reporters we have. The soldiers quoted have all served out there alongside US forces. I think, in view of all this, that you should start to consider the possiblility that things are going seriously wrong out there.

I may never have served myself, but that doesn't mean I'm therefore utterly unqualified to comment. If you look at the history of these things, certain consistent patterns emerge, and if you, Damocles, deny this, then you are failing to learn the lessons of history. Armies of occupation always become more brutal as the occupation goes on. Once you get sucked into a war where it's hard to tell the insurgents from the locals, you're lost.

I have to say that the perception of the US outside its borders is very different from the way its own citizens perceive it. Have you ever heard the phrase 'the ugly American'? It goes back a long way and refers to someone who is arrogant, loud, boorish, and dismissive of, well, pretty much everyone else. All those posters on this forum - and there are many - who unceasingly bang on about how the US is the greatest country in the world and how everyone wants to live there might consider the damage they're doing to their own country's reputation and that perhaps they should treat people from the rest of the world with a little more respect. Some of those people might feel patriotic about their own countries, and find that kind of trash talk offensive.

On a planet of upwards of six billion, one nation of 350 million (but with the biggest military budget in the world - bigger then the next 19 nations' combined) uses around half of the world's resources.

You might like to ponder the idea that those last two facts are not entirely unconnected.