So it begins, the Battle for...

[Jonathan]

http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/...ain/index.html

So it begins, the Battle for Falluja.
Any thoughts? Support/Critism of this action? etc.

[Frank Hagan]

My criticism is that this should have been done before soverignty was given to the temporary Iraqi government.

The delay in dealing with the insurgents, and thinking that you can negotiate a settlement with them, is the biggest blunder of this war. I suspect that many more innocents, and more importantly, many more Americans will be killed now that we waited, and I fear the reason was political rather than tactical: the Bush administration could not afford a bloody military campaign prior to the election.

Now, we should require full and unconditional surrender, with no room for negotiation.

[Pedja]

I you Americans, like wars so much, why don't you arrange one at your playground? That would be satisfactory to all. You will have your game, others will be left alone, and lots would surely be happy to watch.

I find it odd to see american complaining about killed inocent people in Iraq, when most of them were kiled by american soldiers. It's even more odd to complain about killed american soldiers. They are soldiers, they invaded foreign teritory, and what? It's their job to fight and die.

Let's talk open, the only reason americans are in Iraq is oil. Nothing else. Those people there are missfortunate to live on the largest natural resource of oil. American policy is very clear: do whatever it takes to get what you want. Iraqians are just obstackle standing in the way.

[Jonathan]

I you Americans, like wars so much, why don't you arrange one at your playground? That would be satisfactory to all. You will have your game, others will be left alone, and lots would surely be happy to watch.

I find it odd to see american complaining about killed inocent people in Iraq, when most of them were kiled by american soldiers. It's even more odd to complain about killed american soldiers. They are soldiers, they invaded foreign teritory, and what? It's their job to fight and die.

Let's talk open, the only reason americans are in Iraq is oil. Nothing else. Those people there are missfortunate to live on the largest natural resource of oil. American policy is very clear: do whatever it takes to get what you want. Iraqians are just obstackle standing in the way.

Nobody likes wars Pedja. But being the most powerful country on earth
earns one alot of enemies, especially from past conflicts.

Most Iraqi civs killed that are innocent, IMHO, were by the insurgents.
I do admit some are *accidently* killed by Americans.

As for the complaining over American deaths, I admit its somewhat hyped;
I mean, it is not going to turn into another 'Nam over there, BUT--
If your country was there, wouldn't you be angry your soldider[s] were dying?

While we're talking openly, let me ask you how many local news stations,
wherever you live, promote anti-West/American propaganda? Don't be shy...

Bill Clinton made the police of regime change for Iraq. Saddam most go.
BUT, he was to busy cheating on his wife to really enforce it.

Bush enforced Clinton's policy. Live with it. We did not go over there
for the f*cking oil. If we wanted it that bad, bye bye Venz. down south.

America Policy? Its to do whatever its to keep this world safe,
especially us (check Sig), even while those we try to protect are backstabbing us in the back.

Ungratful world

<edit>America's Turn</edit>

[Frank Hagan]

I you Americans, like wars so much, why don't you arrange one at your playground? That would be satisfactory to all. You will have your game, others will be left alone, and lots would surely be happy to watch.

I find it odd to see american complaining about killed inocent people in Iraq, when most of them were kiled by american soldiers. It's even more odd to complain about killed american soldiers. They are soldiers, they invaded foreign teritory, and what? It's their job to fight and die.

Let's talk open, the only reason americans are in Iraq is oil. Nothing else. Those people there are missfortunate to live on the largest natural resource of oil. American policy is very clear: do whatever it takes to get what you want. Iraqians are just obstackle standing in the way.

We have a new policy: if you continue to support the actions of those trying to kill us, we will kill you. Iraq is one of the countries we identified as the "axis of evil", supporting terrorism and the radical Islamist's goal to destroy western culture. The others are Iran, Libya, North Korea and Syria. Libya has done the right thing by stepping down and complying with UN requirements regarding their weapons of mass destruction. North Korea is probably next on the list, and then Iran and Syria. Diplomatic efforts are under way now to work with these countries, but if that fails, and they still support killing us, we will have no choice but to kill them.

Oil is important to western democracies. However, America has never gotten oil from Iraq. We are not getting it now. Most Iraqi oil went to Europe. We buy the oil we get, at market price. The countries who sell us their oil sell it to us willingly. We do not take oil at the point of a gun. However, when Saddam Hussein invaded Kuwait, with eyes cast toward Saudi Arabia (our source of oil), we knew that our enemy could cripple our economy by cutting off our oil and not allowing us to buy it. So in that respect, yes, "its about oil". Without access to oil, our economy will falter, and our people will starve. We will not let our people starve, or be attacked.

[Buddha]

My criticism is that this should have been done before soverignty was given to the temporary Iraqi government.

I agree it should've been done earilier, as in the first time we went in to Falluja. A lot of people died the first and a lot more will die this time. Death is the price paid for delaying any action in war.

The delay in dealing with the insurgents, and thinking that you can negotiate a settlement with them, is the biggest blunder of this war. I suspect that many more innocents, and more importantly, many more Americans will be killed now that we waited, and I fear the reason was political rather than tactical: the Bush administration could not afford a bloody military campaign prior to the election.

I think the Bush administration has been micromanaging this war from Washington DC because of the election. An election which was going on before the war even started. Thankfully the election is over and Bush can give the military their orders and let tham carry them out.

Personally, I think the biggest blunder was trusting our allies like Turkey.

Now, we should require full and unconditional surrender, with no room for negotiation.

I just hope my friends over there come out of this alive.

I you Americans, like wars so much, why don't you arrange one at your playground? That would be satisfactory to all. You will have your game, others will be left alone, and lots would surely be happy to watch.

You seem upset Pedja, so am I. I'm an American but I don't like war. None of this makes me happy.

I find it odd to see american complaining about killed inocent people in Iraq, when most of them were kiled by american soldiers. It's even more odd to complain about killed american soldiers. They are soldiers, they invaded foreign teritory, and what? It's their job to fight and die.

My first concern is for the American troops in Iraq, and my friends over there. I want them to come home alive. The innocent people of Iraq are admittedly way down my list of concerns. However, I do think it is vital that we stablize, rebuild and help the Iraqi people realize a prosperous future Iraq. That is my optimistic hope for Iraq and it's people.

Let's talk open, the only reason americans are in Iraq is oil. Nothing else. Those people there are missfortunate to live on the largest natural resource of oil. American policy is very clear: do whatever it takes to get what you want. Iraqians are just obstackle standing in the way.

Oil has been a big factor in all of America's dealings in the Middle East. What you should ask is what has changed to cause America to risk destablizing the Middle East oil suppy? The major powers of the world know how dangerous war in Iraq is to the world economy. The world economy runs on oil, nothing moves without oil in one form or another. What has changed?

Obviously America perceives a threat in the Middle East, one worth the risk of destablizing the Middle East oil supply to fight it. OBL woke America up to the threat of Middle Eastern terrorism. OBL misjudged America we didn't withdraw, we attacked. I'm not saying Iraq had anything to do with 9/11 or OBL. Iraq has been at the center of Islam since before Jesus Christ and there is no better place to fight Middle East terrorism than Iraq. Iraq wasn't a major threat to America, Iraq was a major opportunity to take the fight to the Middle East. We chose a better battlefield than Afghanistan, we didn't like OBL's choice. This is JMO.

[Frank Hagan]

I'm not saying Iraq had anything to do with 9/11 or OBL. Iraq has been at the center of Islam since before Jesus Christ and there is no better place to fight Middle East terrorism than Iraq.

While I agree with your conclusions, a minor nitpick: you might want to check your timeline on the start of Islam (Christianity pre-dates it). Islam dates to the 5th century or so ... I think Mohammad died in 630 or something like that.

[Buddha]

While I agree with your conclusions, a minor nitpick: you might want to check your timeline on the start of Islam (Christianity pre-dates it). Islam dates to the 5th century or so ... I think Mohammad died in 630 or something like that.

I think it was 622 but close enough as far as Mohammad goes. I think much of Islam fundations can be trace back much further especially those dealing with war and law. Much of how women are treated in Islam can be traced back as far as Babylon centuries before Christ. Mind you I'm no religous schalor, I just see similarities between Islam and many Mesopotamian cultures.

[Jonathan]

Mespot huh?
I'm going to my homepage where no big words exist...

*jiggles mouse down, up, right, down*

[Buddha]

Mespot huh?
I'm going to my homepage where no big words exist...

*jiggles mouse down, up, right, down*

History is full of big words. It's better to struggle with those big word then repeat the mistakes of history. There are plenty of example of mistakes in the history of Mesopotamia we should try to avoid repeating for our own good.

[Jonathan]

After abit of googling, I think its all the
ancient Middle Eastern cultures.

On the note of history repeating itself,
what about America vs. Roman Empire?

I forgot some of the key issues, but I know
it concerns like Gay/Lesbian (legalization of some sort if I remember right),
Public Health Care (wasn't that just public fountians to take baths in?), etc.

[Frank Hagan]

I think it was 622 but close enough as far as Mohammad goes. I think much of Islam fundations can be trace back much further especially those dealing with war and law. Much of how women are treated in Islam can be traced back as far as Babylon centuries before Christ. Mind you I'm no religous schalor, I just see similarities between Islam and many Mesopotamian cultures.

Yeah, you are right on that point ... Mohammad consolidated the various cultures under monotheism, but retained many of the cultural aspects (and he "consolidated" by winning the wars in traditional ways, then granting more autonomy to the conquered in order to win them over philosophically ... like Rome before him, he found that it worked.)

[Pedja]

Nobody likes wars Pedja. But being the most powerful country on earth earns one alot of enemies, especially from past conflicts.

You do not create enemies by just being powerful, but by using that power in wrong manner, to pursue your own interest on behalf of other's. If you are big and strong people would usualy admire you, but when you play as big bad guy who pushes around whoever he wants, then they will start to hate you, and they will fight back, even if they are weaker.

Most Iraqi civs killed that are innocent, IMHO, were by the insurgents.
I do admit some are *accidently* killed by Americans.

You watch to much CNN. Whn Americans are fighting it is always the same - use as much power you can to blast everything on your way, possibly from the distance, and do not care about collateral damage. Actually, US army changed the meaning of the term "colateral damage" to "who cares who dies if we win".

It is americans who use uranium and napalm and cassete bombs which are developed to kill as many as possible and which are regularly dropped on civilians.

I can understand that you do not know about that because someone does not want you to know and partialy because you do not want to know, but that is the real life: american soldiers killing civilians is official policy and it is done wherever it is possible supported by overabuse of power.

If your country was there, wouldn't you be angry your soldider[s] were dying?

That is not the point. Point is that you are whining about your soldiers are killed in Iraq. Of course they are, they are sent to invade foreign country and it is reasonable that someone there will fight back with intention to kill them. If you care about them, then you should prevent them form being sent there.

As it looks now, you sent soldiers to Iraq to kill people, and when people there fight back and kill your soldiers, you say that it is intolerable that someone kills your boys and you ask for more killings of those who killed them.

And then you bomb whatever you want, including, schools, hospitals, appartment buildings, even wedding ceremonies...

While we're talking openly, let me ask you how many local news stations,
wherever you live, promote anti-West/American propaganda? Don't be shy...

It is mostly anti-american propaganda, and it is not the case in my country. It is common sense not to support american policy of brutaly enforcing its interests. It is common sence of what is right and what is wrong.

You should realize that most of the world, althrough do not support ex Iraqi regime, is not on your side, even if they do not declare openly because of the consequences.

America Policy? Its to do whatever its to keep this world safe,
especially us (check Sig), even while those we try to protect are backstabbing us in the back.

That's because you do not hear people crying for you to stop protecting them.

That story about keeping the world safe is fairy tale for usual american to not obstruct actions. If you enjoy that dream, good for you, but world expected that SEPT 11 had to wake you up.

Have you ever asked yourself what caused such great hatery against you to produce madness to do such act? Have you ever considered it was just an reaction to actions of your country in the past? Have you ever considered that you are now figting the same people you supported, trained and armed in the past, when they were targeted against other enemy that was threat to them, and coincidentaly, you had interest to hurt that same enemy but you were afraid to do it openly? Do you think it is ok if they fight your enemies but not if they fight against you?

You americans do have strange habbit to look at the things from some specific point of time without looking further in the past. As quite young nation you should take care that world did not start with you and that it cannot be measured with your measures, and especially it is not measured by military power.

You expect world to be greatul to you? For what? For dropping atomic bombs on Japan? For napalming almost whole nation of Vietnam? For supporting narco cartells in South America? For creating heatress all over the world? For arming terorist groups in part of the world where you have interest for their actions?

If you thing those are good stuff, why don't you do it on yourselves?

We have a new policy: if you continue to support the actions of those trying to kill us, we will kill you. Iraq is one of the countries we identified as the "axis of evil", supporting terrorism and the radical Islamist's goal to destroy western culture. The others are Iran, Libya, North Korea and Syria. Libya has done the right thing by stepping down and complying with UN requirements regarding their weapons of mass destruction. North Korea is probably next on the list, and then Iran and Syria. Diplomatic efforts are under way now to work with these countries, but if that fails, and they still support killing us, we will have no choice but to kill them.

Well, I thought that communists were the masters of creating such images.
But the image is quite different. First, all this evil you talk about is caused buy your policy, and actually, other western nations are suffering from it.

Problem is that you are unable to see that you are the cause. The basic lessons of history teaches that, to solve the problem you have to deal with cause not the after effects.

Buy dealing with things like you propose to, you will just create more hatery against you, and more instability in the world. Finaly it will get to you. You should understand that others have nothing to loose, but you have.

If you want everyone else not to have technologies that can produce mass destruction weapons then think about the fact that you are the one of them to. Your government does not want these countries to lose dangerous technoogies just because they are dangerous but because they will reach enough power to decrease your own power domination in the world. If they have the weaponry which matches yours then you will not be in position to take brutal actions against whoever you want like you did in recent past and as you are doing now.

Don't you see that world looks at your politics as new version of nacistic policy, but now much more dangerous because there is noone to protect the world from it?

I think much of Islam fundations can be trace back much further especially those dealing with war and law. Much of how women are treated in Islam can be traced back as far as Babylon centuries before Christ. Mind you I'm no religous schalor, I just see similarities between Islam and many Mesopotamian cultures.

Islam and Christianity do have the same sources and even today both religions promote many similar if not identical points of view. Islam was just pushed much furter to east at the time so western world met it later.

[Buddha]

Yeah, you are right on that point ... Mohammad consolidated the various cultures under monotheism, but retained many of the cultural aspects (and he "consolidated" by winning the wars in traditional ways, then granting more autonomy to the conquered in order to win them over philosophically ... like Rome before him, he found that it worked.)

A tradition that went back centuries. It also hightlights a big difference between Islam and Christianity, how the two religions were spread, Islam was spread by Muhammad's empire while Christianity was absorbed by an empire.

Islam and Christianity do have the same sources and even today both religions promote many similar if not identical points of view. Islam was just pushed much furter to east at the time so western world met it later.

I agree Islam and Christianity do have many of the same sources. Christ is recognized by both Islam and Christianity. IMO culturally Islam and Christianity are vary different. One needs to only compare the lifes of Jesus and Muhammad, one was a carpenter and the other a built an empire. It's the remnants of Muhammad's empire we find in Iraq, the Shia and Sunni sects.

Pedja, I think your seeing how polarized America and especially our politicians are on Iraq and just about everything else. America, IMO, is in deep trouble because we no long look for moderate solutions to problems. I think 96% of our representive were re-elected this year. (Don't quote me on that.) Why? Because over the years our representive have carved out districts that protect their parties interest. Democrats run and are elected in Democratic districts and Republicans run and are elected in Republican districts. This means our politicians are only hearing one side of any issue. They have no reason to cooperate with the other party on moderate solutions. The result is the world sees how divided we are on any problem yet we only come up with extreme solutions. Doesn't project a very good image to the world when none of the solution we come up with have the full backing of the American people. As always JMO.

[Frank Hagan]

American policy is, and always has been, to minimize civilian casualties. The only exception in modern times was the dropping of the atom bomb on Hiroshima and Nagasaki (and even one of those cities was a major industrial center central to the war effort ... the second one was a "second choice" city and was mostly residental). It was thought at the time that the Japanese ethos would not allow an invasion of the mainland without having to fight every citizen anyway, and dropping of the bombs would shock the Japanese leadership into accepting surrender terms and, in the process, save more lives than the two bombs cost.

Since Vietnam, we have worked diligently on weapons that target the enemy, even the immoral ones who use civilians as their shields. That's why we have cruise missiles, why we pamphlet and warn civilians in Fallujah for 30 days before we move in. We lose American lives because of that, and since we don't get credit for it from the world, I think we should just start leveling these places.

You might want to let us know which country you are from, Pedja, so we can make sure we don't "intervene" if your neighbor overruns you. We've spilled enough American blood in Europe, and we should never make that mistake again. The French evidently don't care that they are no speaking German today because of men like my father, who waded ashore at Normandy 30 days after so many of our men lost their lives there. We should dig up and bring home every one of those Americans in those grave yards over there.