Assault on Fallujah - Justified?

Carrera

Steady on, guys! Seems like a few tempers are flaring up on some of these messages - not the best way of convincing somebody else to consider another point of view (but that's politics for you).
Yes, it was tragic about that lady who was murdered in Iraq. Can't understand why any terrorist would have wanted to harm an innocent humanitarian worker. The situation in the Russian school was also horrendous where innocent children were half-starved and then shot at.
It should always be remembered, though, that those kinds of terrorists don't represent the people of Iraq who apparently respected that woman a heck of a lot.

limerickman

The yanks here try to equate the murder of a a woman who provided humaitarian help in Iraq for the 30 years - as justification/exoneration for the actions of US marines and they're shooting of people in a Mosque and all of the rest of what has happened in Iraq since their country invaded in 2003.

That comaprison is not only expedient - it's a fucking insult.

There is a pattern developing here - lies about the invasion, systematic torture of prisoners in Cuba, lies about the Al Qaeda and Hussein, systematic torture of prisoners in Abu Ghuraib, shooting and killing of unarmed combatants in Mosques.
That is a pattern.

The people who murdered Margaret Hassan were wrong and are totally to blame for her murder.

The Yanks are totally to blame for lies about the invasion, systematic torture of prisoners in Cuba, lies about the Al Qaeda and Hussein, systematic torture of prisoners in Abu Ghuraib, shooting and killing of unarmed combatants in Mosques, illegal invasion of another sovereign country which posed no threat to the USA.

No relativism between the two set of crimes applies here.

If the Yanks weren't in Iraq it is 99.9% probable that Margarat Hassen, Ken Bigley etc would still be alive.

FredC

Good post, I think the woman would still be doing a good job today. after all nobody threatened her in the entire 30 years, which is before Husseins regime. The culmination of her demise is down to USA intervention, which is rather odd as they financed him against Khomeni in Iran. Come on USA destroy yourselves.

Induray

Show me a "clean" war.

limerickman

No war is clean.

But remind me - who declared war on who, in respect of Iraq ?

Induray

That is the beauty of state sponsored terrorism. With the understanding that few countries could survived a direct assault on the US or by them "declaring" war on the US, they will try to inflict damage to the US (9/11) without "declaring" war on the US. Formal war declarations and preemptive attacks by uniformed military against military installations (Pearl Harbor) are considered too risky for the rogue nations to undertake. However all wars are dirty and the only thing that counts is to win it. I'm sorry Bro...they hate us and they're out there to harm us.

limerickman

First of all, I'm not your bro.

Secondly, when did the Iraqi's attack the USA ?

Carrera

Yes, I think if you look at the scenario logically, it's basically impossible for Iraq to meet any requirements made over the years.
Firstly, Iraq was asked to give up any WMD's it had, but assurances by the regime that it had no WMD's were denied by Bush and the neos. Then Iraq agreed to very intrusive U.N. inspections but that didn't satisfy Bush either. Then, after the invasion and the discovery there were hardly any weapons worth worrying about, the new line switched to installing democracy in Iraq. However, even if Iraq wanted a western style democracy, they are basically denied a fair election since the present prime minister is obviously a puppet. I mean, it's obvious they're never going to get a fair election that's monitored by international observers and any elected prime minister the Iraqis choose will obviously be overuled on any policies the Administration dislikes.
The whole purpose of Bush's intervention was to get his hands on the oil fields, period. In fact, Tim Sebastian recently revealed that huge percentages of profits from Iraq's oil reserves have disappeared into the treasuries of U.S. companies.

limerickman

And that's the quandry.
It's all down to oil.

On the pretext applied in Iraq - the USA could demand anything from any country and if they don't divvy up, they'll invade them.
Iraq was asked to give up something it never had : so it's a lose/lose scenario.

Europe needs to disengage with the USA, and go it's own way.
It's intolerable that we could have anything to do with the USA, under it's current administration.
Europe needs to go the France/German route and I would hope that Bliar would wake up to this.
Hungarian parliament has said that they're bringing their troops home before
31st December 2004.

In time the USA will lose inteest in Iraq - and Allawi and co will be treated as traitors by the Iraqi's.

Oil is what this is all about.

FredC

Just listenened to IRN. The MrsErkins are stretched beyond their capabilities in both resolutions and dialogue. Lost, Lost, Lost, in the wilderness of ignorance. Come on home Europe. There's Strong Ale and Cake for tea.

Weisse Luft

The Europeon objection to US involvement in Iraq is just about defense. Defense over the corruption of the UN OFF program. When the chips settle, there will be hell to pay for the complicity of certain countries in this scandel.

FredC

Hey listen Shofah blower, no country in Europe bothered about SH's WMD, because he didn't have any. The Merkians invented the whole scenario. Hell to play???. No shmuck we have diplomatic political accords which will always work.

davidmc

Priceless post. Here's an alternative strategy. Remove all troops, give a reasonable amt. of time for all innocent's to evacuate then nuke 'em till the ground turns to glass. Then, there's more, carve out a portion of the remainder & give it to the palestinians as a gift. Neutron bomb's would have to be used, in that case, so the land would be able to be used again & not be a sheet of glass; in a reasonable period of time. I don't see the indigenous insurgent's reasoning. We tell them A) we'll depose a ruthless dictator & then, B) we'll turn the country over to you to rule yourselves & you can have a stake in the prosperity of your resources. But no, it all comes down to christian vs. muslim, no? No rationality involved. I can see them not wanting American pop-culture, i can't stand it myself, it's soul-eating but democracy? Are they saying they're not ready/wanting to determine their own destiny?

__________________
I'm completely in favor of the separation of Church and State. My idea is that these two institutions screw us up enough on their own, so both of them together is certain death.
George Carlin
US comedian and actor (1937 - )

davidmc

Heard of this book? :
LOSING THE WAR....An anonymous intelligence officer released a book saying that Bush is losing the war on terror:

Imperial Hubris is the latest in a relentless stream of books attacking the administration in election year. Most of the earlier ones, however, were written by embittered former officials. This one is unprecedented in being the work of a serving official with nearly 20 years experience in counter-terrorism who is still part of the intelligence establishment.

The fact that he has been allowed to publish, albeit anonymously and without naming which agency he works for, may reflect the increasing frustration of senior intelligence officials at the course the administration has taken.

This is the second book written by this guy, but apparently he takes his criticism of Bush far beyond anything he's published before. Among other things, Anonymous say that (a) we probably aren't close to capturing bin Laden, (b) Bush and Tommy Franks screwed up big time by not going after him with massive firepower at Tora Bora in 2002, and (c) al-Qaeda is probably stronger than ever right now. And then there's this:

Anonymous, who published an analysis of al-Qaida last year called Through Our Enemies' Eyes, thinks it quite possible that another devastating strike against the US could come during the election campaign, not with the intention of changing the administration, as was the case in the Madrid bombing, but of keeping the same one in place.

"I'm very sure they can't have a better administration for them than the one they have now," he said.

"One way to keep the Republicans in power is to mount an attack that would rally the country around the president."
We are, the author notes, losing the war on terror. Hawks will squirm as the author heaps contempt on U.S. missions in Afghanistan (too little, too late) and Iraq ("a sham causing more instability than it prevents"),

__________________
I'm completely in favor of the separation of Church and State. My idea is that these two institutions screw us up enough on their own, so both of them together is certain death.
George Carlin
US comedian and actor (1937 - )