babble home
rabble.ca - news for the rest of us
today's active topics


  
FAQ | Forum Home
  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» babble   » archived babble   » the middle east and central asia   » An Iraqi fighter's letter home...

Email this thread to someone!    
Author Topic: An Iraqi fighter's letter home...
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 21 November 2004 06:17 PM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Falluja: last words of the living dead

quote:
IT WAS the second day of the American offensive against insurgents in Falluja. Abu Fatima, a 45-year-old shopkeeper who had joined the fighters in the belief that he was defending his city, sensed that he had only a short time to live.

Long article including stories from the family aa they are sexually harrassed by Iraqi National Guard soldiers. Intereseting first hand acount.


From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Walking Dude
recent-rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7289

posted 21 November 2004 07:33 PM      Profile for Walking Dude     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Stories like this one highlight a fact that I think is often lost on supporters of the Iraq war. Firstly, the number of insurgents is not fixed. If there are currently x number of insurgents, killing x number of insurgents does not mean there are now no more insurgents. Depending on the tactics used to kill those people there are quite possible more than before. Secondly fighters in Iraq do not equal international terrorists; lots of people now trying to kill US troops, even those using terrorist tactics to end the occupation would have posed no threat to the US if the US was not in their country. Killing someone who is planting a IED, does not mean that you just made the homeland safer. You may of made it worst, when the son, wife, or brother of that person decides to take the fight to the US.

Sometimes it seems like those supporting the war are capable only of binary thinking. They don't seem to get the nuance that people are not born terrorists, they are made terrorist, what they are doing in Iraq is creating enemy, not eliminating them.


From: The longing to be primitive is a disease of culture | Registered: Nov 2004  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 22 November 2004 09:18 AM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I think a lot of the problems that the US has is caused by their overuse of overwhellming firepower.

It seems like the British run areas are actually fairly quite, even though attempts have been made to inflame the area during the A sadr rising. In the short run overhwellming firepower seems to work to save US lives, and in a tactical sense it does, yet in the long run it breeds insurgents. On the other hand the British, don't race aroung in there vehicles, don't wear helemets, and don't bring in the heavy artillery, or air support for simple sniper attacks, they do it the hard way, which may make a difference in a strategic sense.


From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
kablunnanajuk
recent-rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7196

posted 22 November 2004 01:56 PM      Profile for kablunnanajuk     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Cueball:
I think a lot of the problems that the US has is caused by their overuse of overwhellming firepower.

I think you are right.

The Yanks do respond to attacks with overwhelming firepower. Objectively, it seems iresponsible, but the commanders are operating under poltical and doctrinal constraints to minimise US casualties at all costs. Dead foreign civilians is preferable to dead US soldiers, to the US electorate.

To me, the whole battle for Falluja seemed like a stupid and irresponsible idea on the part of the insurgents. And even the resistance leader Abu Abdullah seemed to place blame for the battle on non-Iraqi fighters who chose to use the city as their base. If they had laid low for a year or so, 80% of the American trops in Iraq would have gone home. The American public wanted them home, anyway. Fighting them only gives them a reason to stay, both to enforce stability, and to save face.

Reading the article, I was struck by the images that it was Iraqis doing most of the bad to each other. The rape & attempted rape stories involved Iraqi NG, not US troops. The prisoners were in more danger from rockets fired by the insurgents.


From: 2000km from home (by road) | Registered: Oct 2004  |  IP: Logged
Rufus Polson
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3308

posted 22 November 2004 04:43 PM      Profile for Rufus Polson     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by kablunnanajuk:

If they had laid low for a year or so, 80% of the American trops in Iraq would have gone home.

I was with you to here. No they would not have--at least, not unless an appropriately repressive regime capable of making sure that all the stolen resources stayed stolen and no social programs were put back was very solidly in place. And many of them, not even then. How many permanent military bases were planned?

The point is not the number of troops. It's the foreign occupation, control, and looting; there was no plan for that stuff to end.


From: Caithnard College | Registered: Nov 2002  |  IP: Logged

All times are Pacific Time  

   Close Topic    Move Topic    Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
Hop To:

Contact Us | rabble.ca | Policy Statement

Copyright 2001-2008 rabble.ca