Iraq

[be.jazz]

On the news last night: attack on Fallujah kills a family of 6 in an ongoing attempt to make the country secure enough to hold democratic elections in January.

Does this seem absurd to anyone else? Killing civilians so that they may fulfill their electoral duties ASAP? Seems like a very high toll for a very shallow definition of democracy.

 

[Turns out HMG was right!]

On the news last night: attack on Fallujah kills a family of 6 in an ongoing attempt to make the country secure enough to hold democratic elections in January.

Does this seem absurd to anyone else? Killing civilians so that they may fulfill their electoral duties ASAP? Seems like a very high toll for a very shallow definition of democracy.

"We had to destroy the village to save it"

 

[satanmcnugget]

even beyond that, jazz, they are trying to bring some "stability" to the area so as to make it more attractive to foreign investors and let the rape of resources begin in earnest...and, yeah, it's disgusting

 

[Pearsall]

Ok, so what do you people think should be done?

 

[satanmcnugget]

regarding?

 

[Pearsall]

Falluja.

 

[satanmcnugget]

i kinda gathered that...but i interpret the question to go beyond that...ive heard this one before on other boards...it usually means "well, it's fine to criticize, but if you dont have a better plan, you should shut up now"...if that isnt what the question implied, then i apologize

i guess in this context what i would do is perhaps stop slaughtering innocent civilians...that type of thing used to be considered a war crime, after all

 

[Pearsall]

It's basically impossible to not kill civilians in modern war, especially in a counterinsurgency program.

The US military has been extraordinarily cautious about civilian casualties in Falluja by historical and regional standards.

Have you ever heard of Hama?

People in that part of the world don't play nice.

Essentially, saying "we shouldn't kill innocent civilians" is meaningless unless you want the West to not get involved in any wars ever again, which is a respectable moral standpoint, even if its impossible.

 

[be.jazz]

even beyond that, jazz, they are trying to bring some "stability" to the area so as to make it more attractive to foreign investors and let the rape of resources begin in earnest...and, yeah, it's disgusting

If they can fix the infrastructure... Iraq is importing oil at the moment, apparently.

i guess in this context what i would do is perhaps stop slaughtering innocent civilians...that type of thing used to be considered a war crime, after all

Not necessarily: the Allies killed lots of French and German civilians in the Second World War.

Ok, so what do you people think should be done?

I'm not a military or Persian Gulf expert. I didn't think that there was a case for this war. I would simply ask a few questions, such as:
What are the US fighting for? To be able to hold elections leading to a government that has little popular legitimacy because it is seen as being propped up by the US?

Is the presence of the US Army decreasing or increasing instability in the country?

Is this war actually doing anything positive for the War on Terror, considering that Saddam Hussein had no known ties with major terrorist organisations?

 

[satanmcnugget]

Not necessarily: the Allies killed lots of French and German civilians in the Second World War.

i hear what you are saying...perhaps i shld amend my comment to read something like "that type of thing used to be considered a war-crime if you were on the losing side and got caught"

Pearsall, i know the US isnt exactly going out of their way to kill civilians (at least not always...makes for bad TV), and i know that this is a common occurrence of modern warfare,
but have u seen this?

http://www.newsgateway.ca/Fallujah_video_massacre.htm

 

[Pearsall]

I was only really talking about Falluja, but, hell, I'll bite: (I should point out that I am a contrarian and there's nothing I like more than a leftish sectarian ruck)

What are the US fighting for? To be able to hold elections leading to a government that has little popular legitimacy because it is seen as being propped up by the US?

Ok, consider the turnout for elections in Afghanistan. Is a similar result impossible in Iraq?

(tbh, I see that as unlikely, but if Sistani goes for it then who knows?)

Is the presence of the US Army decreasing or increasing instability in the country?

That's sort of a trick question really. Iraq is an inherently unstable country (as are pretty much all the 'nations' welded together under European imperialism). Under Saddam it was glued together by sheer police state brutality. Bushco has, well, fucked it by letting everything out of the bottle without enough troops to maintain order or empty the ammo caches, and by trusting in the magic of the market to reconstruct things (a command economy style mass reconstruction project would have been vastly smarter by actually having people working and not sitting around with nothing to do). They broke it open and now, well, we are going to see what happens.

Still, say the US troops leave tomorrow, what do you think happens then? You think the Shiite majority are going to go hold hands with the Wahhabis in Falluja or are they going to stomp the shit out of them in a way that the US army can't due to political considerations?

Is this war actually doing anything positive for the War on Terror, considering that Saddam Hussein had no known ties with major terrorist organisations?

Iraq had little to do with Islamist terrorism during Saddam Hussein's time, but it sure as hell does now. Falluja, Ramadi etc are the global ground zero for the bearded jihad tendency.

That's what makes the situation so difficult. Basically, as far as I can tell, if Bush decides to 'cut and run' now then it hands a gigantic propaganda victory to the jihadis. Their total and utter incompetence has made this situation more likely.

 

[Pearsall]

i hear what you are saying...perhaps i shld amend my comment to read something like "that type of thing used to be considered a war-crime if you were on the losing side and got caught"

Pearsall, i know the US isnt exactly going out of their way to kill civilians (at least not always...makes for bad TV), and i know that this is a common occurrence of modern warfare,
but have u seen this?

http://www.newsgateway.ca/Fallujah_video_massacre.htm

the video of that is on Steakandcheese. tbh, it's very difficult to tell who it is exactly.

if it can be confirmed that it was civilians then I would have no problem with him being cuffed up and sent off to a tribunal.