The Iraq thread 4

[bn880 5]

What are you talking about Albert? Read what I wrote, I am not saying they are not skilled. I already said they have overwhelmingly more training and some of the best equipment. That's the entire point.

There is no guess work, we know people are being killed by artillery/MLRS and all sorts of nasty indiscriminatory stuff in Fal. This is a fact, look even at the pictures FFS.

I'm calling bullshit on MLRS, they ain't been using them.

I believe they did, or whatever they were using was close enough.

Quote[/b] ]

Quote[/b] ]The technique is there to minimize friendly casualties. It was always there since the beginning of war, but there are various levels.

the more you minimize your casualties in urban conflicts, the more innocent people will be killed. That is, the easiest way to minimize your casualties currently is a long siege, or chemical warfare. Starve all or kill all inside. Next are weapons like large HE bombs and artillery launching them. Simply put, it is not an acceptable tactic in todays western cultures, not in germany either Albert. Imagine someone invading Germany to free it from some "insurgents" and then shelling a district of Berlin with artillery/MLRS/WP etc. You call that MOUT? That isn't eliminating the insurgents, that is eliminating anyone in the vicinity.

Tet me explain it another way, the problem is not that it is difficult to eradicate people in a city, the problem is how to eradicate only desired targets in the city. What were the numbers 90K in Fal. 5K of that insurgents?

If they were soley caring about there own casualties then why are they actually entering the city, you talking BS again, i doubt they would have trained for 7 months before being deployed in MOUT if they were going to sit back and shell a city like they did before, as far as i can see the shelling is fairly light from air and land based arty. Although shelling in city's can hardly be precise from what i have seen and heard there being very selective with there targets. plus it was never a prolonged period of bombing before they moved in either.

You are talking BS monkey, don't be building up little strawmen, your logic is pathetic to me. And it's 'their' not 'there'.

Artillery shelling fairly light, yeah, my ass is also fairly light. Maybe you want to experience this fairly light 155mm shelling yourself, especially WP.

[joltan 0]

In the footage available on the bbc website you can clearly see subammunitions fired into an residential area. Just look under "Latest Audio/Video", select the Fallujah Attack infos and pick the video from the 9th of November - right at the start you can see the ammunitions splitting up and hitting the town. That looks quite like an MRLS (as far as a mere civi like me can judge that).

[Monkey Lib Front 10]

You are talking BS monkey, don't be building up little strawmen, your logic is pathetic to me.  And it's 'their' not 'there'.

in comparison to the last time they operated in Fallujah, they bombed absolute shit out of it. from what i saw the WP rounds were fired over the trainstation as they started the assualt.

[Badgerboy 0]

In the footage available on the bbc website you can clearly see subammunitions fired into an residential area. Just look under "Latest Audio/Video", select the Fallujah Attack infos and pick the video from the 9th of November - right at the start you can see the ammunitions splitting up and hitting the town. That looks quite like an MRLS (as far as a mere civi like me can judge that).

Do the US have a cluster munition for their 155mm's? The British do, and it can be quite focussed when it goes off. A MRLS on the other hand would decimate a decent sized area.

Regardless, the use of any of the above is beyond reason.

[joltan 0]

Do the US have a cluster munition for their 155mm's? The British do, and it can be quite focussed when it goes off. A MRLS on the other hand would decimate a decent sized area.

Ah, I didn't know there were cluster ammunitions for regular artillery shells, too. Might be that. Still firing them into residential areas is probably not a way to reduce civilian casualties. The voice over says they were fired 'to set off possible car bombs in the area'... well, including the sourrounding buildings I guess.

[Monkey Lib Front 10]

Do the US have a cluster munition for their 155mm's? The British do, and it can be quite focussed when it goes off. A MRLS on the other hand would decimate a decent sized area.

Ah, I didn't know there were cluster ammunitions for regular artillery shells, too. Might be that. Still firing them into residential areas is probably not a way to reduce civilian casualties. The voice over says they were fired 'to set off possible car bombs in the area'... well, including the sourrounding buildings I guess.

you sure your not talking of the device the US use to clear mine fields, there using them in the street to set off IED's and booby traps.

The fact is the US have no need to use MLRS and from all the reporting and video there is no evidence apart from shots of WP which can be fired without the use of MLRS

[bn880 5]

Okay, let us say there was no MLRS, despite that, same problem. Firing WP and HE or other cluster bombs into a city is not a good way to fight nmow is it. And having watched a live feed from the start of the invasion, I know the city was hit quite a bit at the start, this is no imagination.

[Monkey Lib Front 10]

Okay, let us say there was no MLRS, despite that, same problem.  Firing WP and HE or other cluster bombs into a city is not a good way to fight nmow is it.  And having watched a live feed from the start of the invasion, I know the city was hit quite a bit at the start, this is no imagination.

well when digital globe release post operational photos of Fallujah we can compare it to the 5th of november one.

Can you point me in the direction of video's or photos of WP over the city itself.

[bn880 5]

Today once again reporters are saying the city was pounded heavily by Bombs. I guess the media control is not working.

[bn880 5]

No I can not point you in any direction to evidence, there is a control of the media in full effect now. If you are lucky though you will find something. Good luck.

Just because you don't hear it, doesn't mean the tree didn't fall, or even the forest.

Okay first place I looked on the internet was the BBC, and immediately jackpot

"As the battle for Falluja goes on, the American military estimates 600 people, whom they describe as insurgents, have been killed as well as 18 US soldiers.

BBC correspondent Paul Wood, embedded with US marines in Falluja, has been witnessing the action and gave this account to the BBC's Today programme.

Well it is no surprise that 600 have been killed - if indeed that figure is accurate.

The marines now are pushing out south of the main road.

The insurgents are believed to be confined to a narrow corridor which runs about 2km south of that road.

And the technique is literally to insert the ordinary marines - the grunts as they call themselves - wait until they draw fire and then hit back with everything they have got.

So you see a fleeting glimpse of one of the militants in the back of a room or jumping across a rooftop and then literally in the two hours I was out last night, thousands of rounds of ammunition are expended, tanks fire and the place is left in ruins.

This is the kind of pressure that the militants are under.

South of the main road now is where the main effort of the coalition forces is going to be concentrated over the next couple of days.

But it will be two days of very bitter, very difficult house-to-house and street-to-street fighting.

How many civilians have been killed - people who either have not left through choice or have been unable to leave - is the crucial question.

I suspect we will have to wait for a definitive answer until the smoke has literally cleared.

As an embedded reporter, I see literally what the military sees.

It is not particularly that the marines want to censor me but I am stuck with one unit and that is all I can see.

[The marines] wait until they see a guy with a gun but when they see that, they open up with everything they've got

When we went through south of the main road last night, the streets - no surprise here - were absolutely deserted, the shops were shuttered.

One can only imagine the plight of the civilians.

I have questioned many times senior officers here about the use of heavy weapons because they have been using 155mm artillery in Falluja, they have been dropping 2,000 pound bombs.

The bullets that they fire are high velocity. The buildings are of poor construction here - the bullets travel through the walls.

And when they see what they believe to be militants - and these marines are incredibly calm under fire, they are almost unflinching - they do wait until they see a guy with a gun but when they see that, they open up with everything they have got and the question is, how much collateral damage is there going to be?

At the moment we simply do not know. "

"EMBEDDED REPORTERS

They can give general troop strength and casualty figures

They can report numbers of enemy POWs

They can give broad information about previous combat actions

Journalists cannot give specific details of locations

They cannot reveal the future plans of their unit"

"Sleeping through bombardment

A house some doors from mine was hit during the bombardment on Wednesday night. A 13-year-old boy was killed. His name was Ghazi.

I tried to flee the city last night but I could not get very far. It was too dangerous.

I am getting used to the bombardment. I have learnt to sleep through the noise - the smaller bombs no longer bother me.

US marines have been fighting Falluja rebels at close quarters

Without water and electricity, we feel completely cut off from everyone else.

I only found out Yasser Arafat had died because the BBC rang me.

It is hard to know how much people outside Falluja are aware of what is going on here.

I want them to know about conditions inside this city - there are dead women and children lying on the streets.

People are getting weaker from hunger. Many are dying from their injuries because there is no medical help left in the city whatsoever.

Some families have started burying their dead in their gardens. "

[bn880 5]

Now you only have to close your eyes, plug your ears, and defy all logic, then you can say, the fight in Fal. is done in acceptable methodology.

Thanks...

[sputnik monroe 102]

It's sad I will not deny that. That said I think you have unrealistic expectations about warfare. Special care in war can only be taken so far before you end up fighting with both hands tied behind your back.

I personally believe that fighting in baby steps does more damage in the long run. Several big battles that end a war are better than years and years of policing.

If world war 2 had been fought with as much restrictions as you seem to deem necessary, it would still be waging today. Imagine how high the death toll would be by now?

Quote[/b] ]War is cruelty. There's no use trying to reform it, the crueler it is the

sooner it will be over. - William Tecumseh Sherman

PS... Bn880, I'm not flaming you. I think you got good intentions, they just aren't realistic.

[bn880 5]

Man, listen to yourself, there are innocent people being killed in the name of avoiding all casualties of a superpower.

Sick, you really make me sick. Think for a minute before you write such strange things. I have unrealistic expectations? Yeah right, it is the pentagon and the "allies" pushing unrealistic BS down everyones throats, and I was always againt this stupid invasion as I knew something liek this would happen, and it did, not only now but before as well.

I really don't know what the fuck is wrong with you people, don't you understand what is happening there? I guess not.

Edit: I am trying to really figure out why peopel are so complacant these days. I mean we have this rememberance day and all that crap, from what happened in WW2 and so on. And woo hoo we all freak out about someone like Hussein killing civilians, and Hitler, etc. how could that happen??? Holy cow!? But when we read about a fucking modern superpower slaughtering people when it doesn't have to, we pass right over it and say: "Oh, they know what they are doing." Bollocks, they are doing whatever they want, with the arabs that are "monkeys" to Bush and Blair.

[billybob2002 0]

Somebody is venting.

Anyway, the Syrian driver for those two French journalist has been freed in Fallujah....

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tm....raq

Quote[/b] ]

Late Thursday, Marines found the Syrian driver captured with two French journalists in August inside an undisclosed location in Fallujah. Capt. Ed Bitanga said the man told military officials he was separated from the journalists — Christian Chesnot, 37, with Radio France Internationale, and Georges Malbrunot, 41, with Le Figaro — about a month ago.

[bn880 5]

Somebody is venting.

Can you blame me? maybe you mean the artillery venting all those houses. Nothing like fresh air to the free people, right.

[billybob2002 0]

Quote[/b] ]Can you blame me? maybe you mean the artillery venting all those houses. Nothing like fresh air to the free people, right.

It worked in Europe...

[bn880 5]

That was not exactly the same situation though, and also tragic of course. they were ineffective any other way, yet in Fal. they could do mostly CQB tactics and achieve the same thing, with maybe 4x the casualties on their side. Big deal? No, for hte miltiary those casualties are nto a tactical problem, and it would save hundreds if not thousands of possible civilian casualties.

You see in Fal. they are not forced to bombarding, they jsut know poeple like you will not react, because you have been pacified in your own way.

For example:

Quote[/b] ]

Iraq press attacks Falluja assault

Several Iraqi newspapers have criticised the government for sanctioning the operation to dislodge rebels in the city of Falluja.

Some believe not enough efforts were made to resolve the situation through dialogue.

The Baghdad daily Al-Dustur describes the operation as "an attempt at applying US democracy at any price".

"The government and its US ally will storm Falluja and use all military capabilities at their disposal to crush the armed groups," it continues.

What could be gained through fighting could also be gained through politics

Al-Manarah

"What is happening is governed by reason and fanaticism, good and evil, peace and war, decision and indecision, freedom and slavery, democracy and dictatorship, unity and division. It is a battle of slogans in which Iraqis remain the only losers."

The Basra daily Al-Manarah calls on the government to call off the dogs of war and resort to dialogue:

"What could be gained through fighting could also be gained through politics. There is still enough time to end the suffering of Falluja and stop the destruction of the city.

"The government should spare no effort to reach an agreement and save the blood of our brothers there."

Bush effect

Al-Manarah believes the US election result "with Bush today having plenty of time before leaving the White House" is one reason the US is gung ho about Falluja.

Iraq will remain a sleeping volcano, even if the state of emergency is extended for ever

Al-Zaman

It also urges the people of Falluja to "throw [insurgent leader and kidnapper Abu Musab] al-Zarqawi and his aides out of the city because their presence there is not in their favour".

Baghdad's Al-Zaman also believes that dialogue would have proved more beneficial than force.

"History repeats itself when Iyad Allawi declares a state of emergency in the country after a government announcement that negotiations have failed to find a peaceful way out of the Falluja crisis.

"The government should have entered into dialogue with the national forces that have made public their intention to boycott the forthcoming elections, which are illegitimate under the occupation.

"The occupiers, for their part, should realise that if a government has been elected, they should define a deadline for their withdrawal, otherwise matters will get out of control.

"This means Iraq will remain a sleeping volcano, even if the state of emergency is extended for ever."

One dissenting voice, in the liberal As-Sabah, feels that the Iraqi government had no choice but to try to restore control over Falluja.

You see the pentagon will do whatever the public allows it in a war. Today the public reacts properly to casualties of their own, but has almost no reaction to innocent foreign civilians being killed! Both grave issues are also restricted from public knowledge, by the government and the Pentagon itself.

[billybob2002 0]

Quote[/b] ]You see in Fal. they are not forced to bombarding, they jsut know poeple like you will not react, because you have been pacified in your own way.

It was not like the the coalition/iraqi forces did not tell Fallujah civilians/insurgents that they are coming. A shit storm was coming and many Fallujah civilians got the hell out of town. It sucks that some stayed but there will be always those type of people who think they can face a tornado heading directly towards them.

Also, I notice you are quoting Iraqi free press...

Quote[/b] ]You see the pentagon will do whatever the public allows it in a war. Today the public reacts properly to casualties of their own, but has almost no reaction to innocent foreign civilians being killed!  Both grave issues are also restricted from public knowledge, buy the government and the Pentagon itself.

No reaction to foreign civilian death has existed a long time. But, poeple have been punished for...

[Akira 0]

Edit: I am trying to really figure out why peopel are so complacant these days. I mean we have this rememberance day and all that crap, from what happened in WW2 and so on. And woo hoo we all freak out about someone like Hussein killing civilians, and Hitler, etc. how could that happen??? Holy cow!? But when we read about a fucking modern superpower slaughtering people when it doesn't have to, we pass right over it and say: "Oh, they know what they are doing." Bollocks, they are doing whatever they want, with the arabs that are "monkeys" to Bush and Blair.

Like my sig says:

Quote[/b] ]"We rationalized destroying villages in order to save them. We saw America lose her sense of morality as she accepted very cooly a My Lai and refused to give up the image of American soldiers who hand out chocolate bars and chewing gum." -John Kerry

[Albert Schweitzer 10]

Quote[/b] ]   I personally believe that fighting in baby steps does more damage in the long run. Several big battles that end a war are better than years and years of policing.

right and wrong. Fighting with babysteps will take you longer to reach the goal. But fighting an agressive war is definetly causing more damage. I dont see how a rapid war can, in the long run, save more lifes, please respond.

Currently the dead line is the election. That is why the military is rushing. But otherwise an agressive war will create more enemies. Maybe not in iraq, but in other islamic nations.

I think the logic of that is clear. The islam does not respect a western nation, even if it is as brutal as Saddam, we learn that lesson right now in Faludja.

I must admit I am impressed by the fierce resistance. And in contrast to jihadists, these men FEAR FOR THEIR LIFES. This should teach you the lesson that those iraqis fight to death because the americans have created the image that all people of Faludja will leave the city dead anyway. The consequence: "if you die, die like a muslim man, with a weapon in your hand".

Quote[/b] ]   If world war 2 had been fought with as much restrictions as you seem to deem necessary, it would still be waging today. Imagine how high the death toll would be by now?

Again right and wrong. The rush came from a growing enemy. Germany was developing new weapons with a technological speed very few other nations could compete with. Furthermore it was a war for teritory and resources. In Iraq there is neither a profit from gaining teritory nor from resources. So what is the rush for? Only for the election.

However you are right with your example of WWII. And I tell you why In contrast, so long as we continue on the military and grand strategic offensive, we will be making Germany's blunder in both World Wars. We will appear so threatening to everyone else, states and non-state elements alike, that every victory we win will generate more enemies until, fighting a hydra, we go down in defeat. Washington needs a Bismarck, but in the camp of the neo-cons, all it can find are many Holsteins.

[sputnik monroe 102]

Quote[/b] ] I dont see how a rapid war can, in the long run, save more lifes, please respond.

Well I can't prove a rapid war will save more lives, it may it may not. I do know though that the sooner the war is over the sooner the healing and full rebuilding can occur.

I'll use weeding a garden as a metaphor. You look out and see your garden is full of weeds. You can go out there and get your hands real dirty and spend the whole weekend weeding it. The Pro's being that it's over and now the garden is ready to grow, the con's being you've got a sore back and it was a very taxing job. You could also commit yourself to weeding a little bit each day. The pro's being that your clothes aren't that dirty and you're not sore, the con's being that by dragging the job out your really losing time. You've lost precious time that the garden could have been growing, and all the while new weeds keep growing. The garden can't grow until the job is done.

Kind of a crude example I know. I hope it makes sense though.

We have to fight these guys either way.It's just my opinion but I think it would be better to fight them in 5 or 6 massive battles if possible than to battle them politely in hundreds of locations for years to come.

[EiZei 0]

We have to fight these guys either way.It's just my opinion but I think it would be better to fight them in 5 or 6 massive battles if possible than to battle them politely in hundreds of locations for years to come.

Yeah, like napalming and other fun stuff at nam. That really worked well, didn't it?

Or chechnya..

Or Soviet invaded Afghanistan..

Do I really need to go on here?

[denoir 0]

The concept of 'battle' is problematic in this case. I very much doubt that this is an Alamo type fight for the rebels. As has been indicated, a lot of them slipped away. It's quite possible that the US is now fighting the rear guard that was left behind.

I don't think there was any alternative to this decision to go in, but I think it a bad decision on many levels. Unfortunately today in Iraq, good options are hard to come by. This will cause problems for the elections, a lot of civilians are dying and suffereing and it is unlikely that it will end the rebellion. Leaving the rebel enclave alone was however not a possible option. Various diplomatic solutions have been tried without success etc

This is exactly why you should not rush to war without having a damn good reason. This is exactly why you should try everything else first. This mess is exactly what was predicted by the ones that warned the US not to rush off to war.

[sputnik monroe 102]

Quote[/b] ]Yeah, like napalming and other fun stuff at nam. That really worked well, didn't it?

Or chechnya..

Or Soviet invaded Afghanistan..

Do I really need to go on here?

Ok so what's your solution? Just fight them gently and politely for the next 15 years? At some point you have decide do you want to win or lose, do want the war won sooner or later, large scale battles now or lots of little battles stretched over a decade.

Also it could be argued we fought a polite hamstrung war in Vietnam. We wouldn't allow ground operations to cross into North Vietnam. How the heck could have we won under those rules?

[EiZei 0]

Ok so what's your solution?

Not rushing into wars?