[redmenace]

...leaving the incursion into the hospital to be carried out by Iraqi soldiers.

If, US forces were running an incursion into the hospital we would be breaking geneva convention. BUT WERE NOT.
I love your fictional charges Rictor.
AND YES I AM ****ING INSANE

I only posted that news story as an update.

[ionia23]

At least what needs to be done is being done.  This needed to be done quite some time ago.

[Rictor]

can't possbily allow Iraqis to run Iraq.
no, that would be a crime.

[redmenace]

"Neither irony or SARCASM is argument."

This is getting boring. I honestly hope they don't use schools and hospitals to hide. I hope civilian casualties are not aweful.

[Rictor]

no you don't.

If you did, you wouldn't support the taking of hospitals, thus denying injured people the aid they so desperately need, you wouldn't support shooting at ambulances, in clear violation of the Geneva convention and any sort of human decency. You wouldn't support heavy bombing, using 500pb bombs, of a town with several hundred thousand civilians it. You wouldn't support an assult that is likely to get many thousands of innocents killed. You wouldn't support foreceflly keeping non-combatants in a warzone, again in violation of the Geneva convention.

just so we're clear on the matter.

[redmenace]

what the liberally biased media in the states has said is that most have left the city.

And you right rictor I want all to DIE, DIE DIE DIE DIE DIE

[aldo_14]

Originally posted by redmenace
As for evacuating the wounded, most wounded will be the insurgents. Most have fled, not all, but most. Chances are the wouded that would be evacuated are those that are the cause of the problem.

Actually, many would probably be unable to leave once the first US artillery shelling / airstrikes began prior to the actual assualt.  Some may also have been unable to - i.e. the elderly, sick or very young (and by consequence their family / carers in many cases)

Originally posted by Rictor
can't possbily allow Iraqis to run Iraq.
no, that would be a crime.

These people aren't exactly nice, family friendly insurgents, you know.  They're not out to improve social welfare or the transport system - their concern is to take power.  

If you want any hope of democracy, you can't have armed militias running about the place intimidating the locals.  I'm not saying I support the methods being used to try and 'remove' them, but I'm not going to parade them as happy-clappy representatives of the people, because the people have no more choice in the matter than they do with any other leader, be it the US-imposed administation, or Saddam beforehand.

[aldo_14]

oh, may be of interest;

Eyewitness: Taking cover in Falluja

BBC journalist in Fulluja

[Rictor]

Look, I'm not saying they're Mother Theresa, but if you think about it, they have more right to be there than the US. One is a foreign occupation supported by literally no one, and the other a local resistance at best and an agressive militia at worst, that at least has some support.

When you say that if there are to be fair elections, you can't have armed militants running around, that includes the US. Presumably, the theory is that as long as the whole country is under the rule of a single armed organization, as opposed to several, that will somehow ensure democratic elections? To me, it seems to be a matter of priority. Elections first, then get the US out, or get the US out, then elections? There is talk of "getting the job done", now assuming that job is holding elections (and thats a pretty big assumption), then is it even possible with the US still there? You would say that its impossible with them gone, but is it not equally impossible to hold elections under occupation.

Right now, I'm around where you are aldo, I support establishing peace prior to elections (though it seems reasonable to expect some consessions in return for relinquishing control ) though not of the way in which it is being done: killing a path to legitimacy.

The basic question is, once you throw down your gun and are at their mercy, do you trust the US to act fairly and justly in the interests of democracy? Excuse my cynicism, but I don't.

[Rictor]

Originally posted by aldo_14
oh, may be of interest;

Eyewitness: Taking cover in Falluja

BBC journalist in Fulluja

Looks like they're aiming for the top, and doing a pretty good job of getting there.

[ionia23]

Of course, alternately, we could just leave and let whatever happens happen.  Suits me fine.

Oh wait, no profit motive..

Then again, assuming lunatic insurgency bullcrap government springs up and decides to make war on the "Infidels", we won't have to exercise any restraint.  Big plus.

[aldo_14]

Originally posted by Rictor
Look, I'm not saying they're Mother Theresa, but if you think about it, they have more right to be there than the US. One is a foreign occupation supported by literally no one, and the other a local resistance at best and an agressive militia at worst, that at least has some support.

When you say that if there are to be fair elections, you can't have armed militants running around, that includes the US. Presumably, the theory is that as long as the whole country is under the rule of a single armed organization, as opposed to several, that will somehow ensure democratic elections? To me, it seems to be a matter of priority. Elections first, then get the US out, or get the US out, then elections? There is talk of "getting the job done", now assuming that job is holding elections (and thats a pretty big assumption), then is it even possible with the US still there? You would say that its impossible with them gone, but is it not equally impossible to hold elections under occupation.

I think the US at least has international pressure upon it to get some form of democracy.... these insurgents don't have anything.  If they win, people expect a theocracy, a dictatorship or simply complete chaos.

I think there is no way whatsoever of holding elections without the US - or at the very least hundreds of thousands of security forces.  I'd rather that security force was of some form of Arab coalition - i.e. locally sensitive - but that's not very likely with the quagmire the country has become.  Basically, I'm going for the lesser of 2 evils - let the Us stay, but keep the pressure heavily upon them to actually do the right thing and make sure elections are held in Iraq, across Iraq, and freely.

Originally posted by Rictor
Right now, I'm around where you are aldo, I support establishing peace prior to elections (though it seems reasonable to expect some consessions in return for relinquishing control ) though not of the way in which it is being done: killing a path to legitimacy.

The basic question is, once you throw down your gun and are at their mercy, do you trust the US to act fairly and justly in the interests of democracy? Excuse my cynicism, but I don't.

I don't expect the US to act outside their own interests, but I think it can be kept within their interests to have a democratic Iraq.  What I would hope - at best - to happen is for a fairly democratic election, but where the parties are all fairly US-dependent.  Over time, hopefully that could evolve into a proper democracy.  Whereas if the insrugents win, there's nothing else.  no hope of democracy, because no-one can put pressure on insurgents to do that, or anything else for Iraq.  In short, there is pressure - as I said above - for the US to do something to rebuild Iraq at the least.  But not upon the insurgents.

And, on the other side of the coin, the coalition (such as it is) has created an absolute mess out of Iraq.  I think they - we (seeing as I am a Brit) - should be duty bound to try and repair that damage, not run away from it.  And repairing that, even if simply on a physical level (such as infrastructure), will require somehow removing or reducing the problem of insurgents and terrorists.  You just have to look at the UN, the aid agencies pulling out to see the scale of the problem.

[vyper]

Ladies, let's get a few cold hard facts established:

If the US leaves this city in "insurgent" hands, they're leaving a base wide open for activists to work from to strike at Allied forces, and the few innocent Iraqis brave enough to oppose the US puppet elections through democratic means.

Now they've attacked they're going to get the worst ass kicking in recent US military history. There is no way for any western army to successfully occupy a city like this, not without years of local knowledge backing them up. Nor are their weapons designed for urban combat - once they're actually fighting street to street, mortars and other AEW are useless (short of risking injuring your own men, or blowing the roof off some random house a few hundred yards away and wasting ammo).

US Casualties will spiral out of control. We'll never know the civilian toll but it will sure as hell be high. The US administration will be dragged through numerous inquests. Black Watch will get hit with a ****storm of "insurgents"  escaping and while I have every faith in a Scottish regiment, I know they'll get a murderous casualty toll. There goes Tony Blair.

Alternatively the US withdraws after a moderate amount of casualties and resorts to carpet/heavy bombing. Goodbye Fallujah's population. Goodbye any remaining moral pretext we as westerners may have in Iraq.



Basically, we're ****************ed.

[aldo_14]

Seems accurate enough to me.

[Liberator]

You forget, they train for urban warfare now.  You're basing that assumption on Vietnam.  I hate to break it to you, but that was 35 years ago.  It's not the same US Military that it was then.

[vyper]

I'm basing my assumption on the fact no amount of training compensates for the fact you're fighting against men who know the territory (very very complex and easily confused territory) better than you do. The heavy weaponry that gives the US it's real advantage is still ineffective in close quarters.
This kind of tactic is based on a "win at all costs" approach. That wins a battle, not a war.

[Corsair]

Black Hawk Down?

[aldo_14]

Originally posted by Liberator
You forget, they train for urban warfare now.  You're basing that assumption on Vietnam.  I hate to break it to you, but that was 35 years ago.  It's not the same US Military that it was then.

Yeah, it's a US military which sinks ever increasing amounts of money into the latest technological marvel......

One fact never changes.  It is extremely difficult to attack any enemy who is defending a tightly enclosed urban environment.  Any advantages of technology, numbers and maneuverability are eroded by the simple fact of being forced to clear room after room, narrow alley after narrow alley.  IIRC, it takes hundreds of troops to properly clear and secure even a small village - this is a large city we're talking about here.

And, of course, political and popular opinion is even more important than 'nam.  As part of a supposed war on terror, every civillian casualty inflicted by US troops will bring more pressure upon the political - and thus military - leadership both within and without Iraq.

[vyper]

One of the Truth Ministry's better efforts I have to say...

Edit: Was referring to Black Hawk Down

[aldo_14]

Oh, and let's not forget the difficulties the Israelis still encounter every time they enter the territories - and they have far better local knowledge and experience than the US troops do.  (and probably more of a popular mandate)