Falluja operation underway

[problem_child]

Originally posted by Ned


I didn't say that people who oppose democracy are terrorists. I say they are not freedom fighters. If they fight fairly and do not commit terrorists acts, but are fighting for some sort of right wing totalitarian rule (as the Islamo-fascists are) then I would call them fascists.


I think what Hitchens is trying to say is that just because these fascists are fighting Bush does not excuse the left for idolizing them. They after all, are fascists, some of who seek to impose radical Islam as a form of government.

Extremely disingenuous. First rule of war, always paint the enemy as a homogenous beast, edit the truth to assist in this.

Considering what happened in Falluja to set things off the first time around, saying that anyone who resists your army is a fascist is just deeply wrong. Your army let loose the dogs of war, it's turned the nation into an anarchic warzone. Now every Islam-nut, suicide-bombadier and execution-hobbyist is off to Iraq to make the place their own, anyone can holler about establishing a Global Sharia or banning bent-bananas, it all plays into US hands because they obscure the fact that the Iraqis themselves have a right to resist the illegal occupation of their country.

The US has already proved that the welfare of Iraqis, the establishment of law and order, the value of Iraqi lives and elections open to all significant Iraqi political leanings, is way down the list of Important Things For USG after puppet governments and Iraqi oil-revenues paying US corporations to fix the damage caused by US bombs, and the buy-up of Iraqi oil-refining infrastructure at bargain-basement prices to yet more US corporations.

And I'm pretty sick of hearing anybody who considers your war on Iraq to be illegal, or points out the hypocracy of your willingness to cause civilian deaths next to the claims of your good-intentions described as a 'leftist', it's nice bipolar world view you have other there in the States, nice an simple red or blue world view .

[Ned]

problem-child, where do you get all this propaganda?

[problem_child]

I know where you got your propaganda buddy, the mainstream corporate media. As for me, I reject propaganda, or at least attempt to absorb enough of it to balance out the other sides.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by Drachasor
How about CNN or the BBC, Dino?

CNN is good enough. Now all we have to do is define how long the avatars would be in effect and it will be a deal.

[Ned]

problem-child, your point of view, then, is pure al Jazeera, which is, of course, known for its "reliable" reporting.

While some of what you say about first causes may be true to some who joined the fight, it is also true that the leader of the Falluja resistance has been Zarqawi, and that Falluja was a major center of the Baathist Party support. Much of the former regime, including the Republican Guard, came from Falluja. These people are not fighting the central government for the reasons you state. Not at all.

[Drachasor]

Originally posted by DinoDoc
CNN is good enough. Now all we have to do is define how long the avatars would be in effect and it will be a deal.

Two months, deal?

-Drachasor

[Last Conformist]

Originally posted by Ned


1) Hanoi -- French lost that
2) SVN -- We were out of the war when that happened
3) Cambodia and Laos could not be against communist ground power with airpower alone.

So again, how did we lose the Vietnam War?

I was refering to the Fall of Hanoi in '75. Kinda redundant together with the commie take-over, I'll admit.

Anyway. The usual definition of losing a war is failing to achieve one's war aims while the enemy achieves his. The Indochinese commies certainly achieved theirs - control over the whole of the former French Indochina. (And then it took a whopping several years before they started tearing one another apart - dontcha love commies?) The American war aim is usually said to be stopping a commie take-over of Indochina, which was not achieved. Instead, you lost enormous amounts of money, quite few lives, lost alot of int'l goodwill, and internal polarization. How did you not lose?

[Chemical Ollie]

Originally posted by Ned
So again, how did we lose the Vietnam War?

You packed and left, before the mission was accomplished.

EDIT: Oh, sorry LC, reminds me that I should read the whole thread before replying...

[Ned]

Originally posted by Last Conformist

I was refering to the Fall of Hanoi in '75. Kinda redundant together with the commie take-over, I'll admit.

Anyway. The usual definition of losing a war is failing to achieve one's war aims while the enemy achieves his. The Indochinese commies certainly achieved theirs - control over the whole of the former French Indochina. (And then it took a whopping several years before they started tearing one another apart - dontcha love commies?) The American war aim is usually said to be stopping a commie take-over of Indochina, which was not achieved. Instead, you lost enormous amounts of money, quite few lives, lost alot of int'l goodwill, and internal polarization. How did you not lose?

Last Conformist: I think you are confusing Saigon, the capital of South Vietnam with Hanoi, the capital of North Vietnam.

We achieved Nixon's war aims -- a cease fire in place and a withdrawal of the final 25,000 US troops.

Tell me then, again, how we lost Vietnam?

What is clear is that the Democrat Party betrayed our ally Vietnam by not supplying it with spare parts and ammo as we said we would. I also give a fair share of the blame of betrayal to the moron president Ford, who could have given the SV the ammo it needed and the air support it needed regardless of Congress because we had committed such to the SV in 1972-3. Ford in his craven, immoral stupidity must have thought that throwing SV to the wolves would make him enormously popular with the American people for the 1976 election and cement his reputation in history as a valiant leader. It did the opposite.

[Ned]

Originally posted by Chemical Ollie


You packed and left, before the mission was accomplished.

What mission?

[Chemical Ollie]

Originally posted by Ned


What mission?

You mean you sent 500 000 men without a mission?

[problem_child]

Originally posted by Ned
problem-child, your point of view, then, is pure al Jazeera, which is, of course, known for its "reliable" reporting.

While some of what you say about first causes may be true to some who joined the fight, it is also true that the leader of the Falluja resistance has been Zarqawi, and that Falluja was a major center of the Baathist Party support. Much of the former regime, including the Republican Guard, came from Falluja. These people are not fighting the central government for the reasons you state. Not at all.

There is some reasonable doubt as to whether this 'Zakalwi' you speak of actually exists, or if indeed he does exist (this Zakalwi whose face we are all by now so familiar with, like some kind of poster-boy for Mad-Eyed-Evil) whether perhaps rumours of his exploits have been a tad exaggerated.

So many reports of what Zakalwi did, what Zakalwi is doing and what Zakalwi plans to do next, seem to place the man at several different locations at once. Anyone would think this Zakalwi guy taught Blofeld everything he knows about super-villainy.

Interesting that this poor kid from Jordan should find it so easy to establish himself in war-torn Iraq (I suppose all these sand-dwellers are at home with eachover automaticaly, right?) and make himself the leader of All Who Take Up Arms against the ForcesofFreedom&Democracy.

Could the fact that Zakalwi doesn't have lots of embarresing family-business connections to the Bush dynasty, have anything to do with him having such great credit amongst the Iraqi Insurgency? (not like that OBL guy... let's move on).

Quite useful also, that all the ForcesofFreedom&Democracy have to do is claim that Zakalwi is Someplace, and when the inevitable denials come from the inhabitants of Someplace that no, he is not here, the ForcesofFreedom&Democracy can say "Right! That's It! We gave you a chance to surrender Zakalwi peacefully but you refused, prepare for your rightious bombardment by our howitzers!" and attack.

Then, when there is no sign of Zakalwi in the ruins, the ForcesofFreedom&Democracy can claim "oh, he probably slipped away in the confusion, that darstadly fiend, got past our tight cordons and everything" and then move on to the next bastion of stubborn resistance Someplace.

When you think about it, this 'Zakalwi' is alot like WMD eh?

But you're quite right, Iraq is where all Saddam's Ba'athist regime came from, so naturally it must be stomped and stomped again because it's lousy with Evildoers.

[Ned]

problem_child, you know, of course, that the entire Iraqi resistance has sworn allegiance to Zarqawi? And he, in turn, has sworn allegiance to bin Laden?

[Alexander's Horse]

Originally posted by Ned


Please explain how "we" lost.

No point Ned - I understand that for some right wingers it is important to believe you won in Vietnam and nothing I will say will shake that belief.

That is a major reason why we are having Vietnam II in Iraq right now.

I know, I know, this time it will be different...........

[Last Conformist]

Originally posted by Ned


Last Conformist: I think you are confusing Saigon, the capital of South Vietnam with Hanoi, the capital of North Vietnam.

Yes I am. I've obviously not slept enough lately.

We achieved Nixon's war aims -- a cease fire in place and a withdrawal of the final 25,000 US troops.

Don't be disingenuous - those weren't the goals the US went to war for. More like conditions for withdrawing with your pride half-way intact.

Tell me then, again, how we lost Vietnam?

Again, by failing to achieve the goals you went to war for while your enemies achieved theirs.