Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Falluja operation underway

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by Arrian
    Ramo,

    It was an interesting article.

    The vast majority of the reader comments, however, were really moronic.

    My favorite:

    [insert horribly moronic and racist jews-control-the-USA-and-are-evil comment here]
    Sigh.
    Indeed, we must all be careful about our sources of information, comrades.

    -Drachasor
    "If there's a child on the south side of Chicago who can't read, that matters to me, even if it's not my child. If there's a senior citizen somewhere who can't pay for her prescription and has to choose between medicine and the rent, that makes my life poorer, even if it's not my grandmother. If there's an Arab American family being rounded up without benefit of an attorney or due process, that threatens my civil liberties. It's that fundamental belief -- I am my brother's keeper, I am my sister's keeper -- that makes this country work." - Barack Obama

    Comment


    • We will ignore the fact that he said the bodies he sees still have there weapons. Obviously the Marines planted them.
      "The DPRK is still in a state of war with the U.S. It's called a black out." - Che explaining why orbital nightime pictures of NK show few lights. Seriously.

      Comment


      • Originally posted by Patroklos
        We will ignore the fact that he said the bodies he sees still have there weapons. Obviously the Marines planted them.
        You missed the context. Those were insurgent bodies the guy was talking about, and they still have their weapons because the soldiers deem it too great a risk to go out there and get them. That speaks to the danger still in the city. He then goes on to talk about how the rotting bodies are becoming a serious health concern.

        -Drachasor
        "If there's a child on the south side of Chicago who can't read, that matters to me, even if it's not my child. If there's a senior citizen somewhere who can't pay for her prescription and has to choose between medicine and the rent, that makes my life poorer, even if it's not my grandmother. If there's an Arab American family being rounded up without benefit of an attorney or due process, that threatens my civil liberties. It's that fundamental belief -- I am my brother's keeper, I am my sister's keeper -- that makes this country work." - Barack Obama

        Comment


        • Anyhow, there are naturally going to be a lot more civilian causalties than insurgent ones for the following reasons:

          1. There are a lot more civilians there than insurgents.

          2. It can be hard to tell the difference and hard to be cautious when soldiers making mistakes can easily end up dead.

          3. There is probably a grey area of some civilians helping the insurgence, and this just muddies the water further.

          4. Often the only reliable way to take out an insurgent is with overwhelming fire of some sort, which would typically lead to civilian causalties.
          Not true at all.

          Most mistakes are not going to be earmarking civilians as insurgents, but rather the other way around.
          "The DPRK is still in a state of war with the U.S. It's called a black out." - Che explaining why orbital nightime pictures of NK show few lights. Seriously.

          Comment


          • The vast majority of the reader comments, however, were really moronic.


            True. On the Internets, the loonies have free reign.

            I believe the official line is that they aren't releasing the numbers and don't know them exactly.


            I may be confusing what the Pentagon said with what Allawi said (that there were no civilian casualties). You might be right.
            "Beware of the man who works hard to learn something, learns it, and finds himself no wiser than before. He is full of murderous resentment of people who are ignorant without having come by their ignorance the hard way. "
            -Bokonon

            Comment


            • so answer me this, armchair insurgent strategists

              IF the assault on Fallujah is strategically pointless, and guerillas move about like water, dissolving their opposition with small actions over time --- Then why did the insurgents follow up their escape from Fallujah almost immediately with a large scale attack in Mosul? Shouldnt they be keeping dispersed, not concentrating YET AGAIN for slaughter? Unless they are desperate to attack quickly because time is agains them? Either because they ARE being beaten militarily, OR because they are desperate to stop the January elections. Or else theyre just stupid.
              "A person cannot approach the divine by reaching beyond the human. To become human, is what this individual person, has been created for.” Martin Buber

              Comment


              • Originally posted by lord of the mark
                so answer me this, armchair insurgent strategists

                IF the assault on Fallujah is strategically pointless, and guerillas move about like water, dissolving their opposition with small actions over time --- Then why did the insurgents follow up their escape from Fallujah almost immediately with a large scale attack in Mosul? Shouldnt they be keeping dispersed, not concentrating YET AGAIN for slaughter? Unless they are desperate to attack quickly because time is agains them? Either because they ARE being beaten militarily, OR because they are desperate to stop the January elections. Or else theyre just stupid.
                Oh, and all the insurgents died in Mosul? They didn't accomplish anything there? They've now penned themselves up there and won't be able to leave? You mean the military is there sweeping them out and they are holding their ground?

                Oh, it's no, no, no, and no. They've lost nothing by attacking Mosul, and are just taking advantage of the fact a good portion of the U.S. military is tied up elsewhere.

                You disperse when you are facing a coming concentrated attack, then you move and concentrate elsewhere again to strike other targets. As much as possible. If you have to stay dispersed all the time, then you do that, but this basically never happens.

                -Drachasor
                "If there's a child on the south side of Chicago who can't read, that matters to me, even if it's not my child. If there's a senior citizen somewhere who can't pay for her prescription and has to choose between medicine and the rent, that makes my life poorer, even if it's not my grandmother. If there's an Arab American family being rounded up without benefit of an attorney or due process, that threatens my civil liberties. It's that fundamental belief -- I am my brother's keeper, I am my sister's keeper -- that makes this country work." - Barack Obama

                Comment


                • Originally posted by lord of the mark
                  so answer me this, armchair insurgent strategists

                  IF the assault on Fallujah is strategically pointless, and guerillas move about like water, dissolving their opposition with small actions over time --- Then why did the insurgents follow up their escape from Fallujah almost immediately with a large scale attack in Mosul? Shouldnt they be keeping dispersed, not concentrating YET AGAIN for slaughter? Unless they are desperate to attack quickly because time is agains them? Either because they ARE being beaten militarily, OR because they are desperate to stop the January elections. Or else theyre just stupid.
                  OR to show that they are strong elsehwhere than Fallujah? OR to ignite ethnic conflict in the North to add more issues?

                  I doubt most Insurgents in Iraq have read Mao and his works at this point- at the same time, the attacks in Mosul have thrown a uch larger city than Fallujah into tumult.

                  Time is not against the insurgents- its for them- the longer things last, the more the interim government is undermined- the more of a mess the elections come January become, thus giving them a claim of illegitimacy. The sunni insurgents can't possibly take over the country-they have too limited a scope. But they can cause the country to split up or move to a bloody mess, which they probably think is good for them somehow.

                  Irsungencies have a public relations side- the US sotryline seemed to be "we take fallujah, huge victory!"- now the wisdom is "Fallujah is a victory, but it cetainly is not an end", which is a better ending for insurgents.
                  If you don't like reality, change it! me
                  "Oh no! I am bested!" Drake
                  "it is dangerous to be right when the government is wrong" Voltaire
                  "Patriotism is a pernecious, psychopathic form of idiocy" George Bernard Shaw

                  Comment


                  • Either because they ARE being beaten militarily, OR because they are desperate to stop the January elections. Or else theyre just stupid.
                    D. All of the Above.
                    "The DPRK is still in a state of war with the U.S. It's called a black out." - Che explaining why orbital nightime pictures of NK show few lights. Seriously.

                    Comment


                    • E. None of the above.
                      If you don't like reality, change it! me
                      "Oh no! I am bested!" Drake
                      "it is dangerous to be right when the government is wrong" Voltaire
                      "Patriotism is a pernecious, psychopathic form of idiocy" George Bernard Shaw

                      Comment


                      • Fallujah wasn't pointless, BTW, if you look at purely as a military exercise. Unfortunately, it was a PR disaster.

                        As I've said earlier, Fallujah has practically guaranteed that the Sunni Arabs are going to boycott the election. That means the Sunni Arabs would have absolutely no place in the gov't, and the insurgency would last at least as long as that gov't does. Further, without the Sunni Arabs in Parliament, the Shia would have an overwhelming majority of seats, and would make the Kurds feel that much more marginalized.
                        Last edited by Ramo; November 15, 2004, 15:44.
                        "Beware of the man who works hard to learn something, learns it, and finds himself no wiser than before. He is full of murderous resentment of people who are ignorant without having come by their ignorance the hard way. "
                        -Bokonon

                        Comment


                        • Simplest way to describe Fallujah:

                          A tactical militray victory that has weakened the insurgents in the center of Iraq but at best a strategic wash since the leadership got away and the insurgents retain the popular base that allows them to survive in the first place.
                          If you don't like reality, change it! me
                          "Oh no! I am bested!" Drake
                          "it is dangerous to be right when the government is wrong" Voltaire
                          "Patriotism is a pernecious, psychopathic form of idiocy" George Bernard Shaw

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by The diplomat


                            Well, we did kill approx. 1200 enemy fighters in Fallujah.

                            And how many more have been recruited in that time?

                            And how many more people - in Iraq and abroad - will be inclined to join them in the future after seeing the foreign occupants fighting through the streets and demolishing buildings?

                            IF the assault on Fallujah is strategically pointless, and guerillas move about like water, dissolving their opposition with small actions over time --- Then why did the insurgents follow up their escape from Fallujah almost immediately with a large scale attack in Mosul? Shouldnt they be keeping dispersed, not concentrating YET AGAIN for slaughter? Unless they are desperate to attack quickly because time is agains them? Either because they ARE being beaten militarily, OR because they are desperate to stop the January elections. Or else theyre just stupid.
                            You remind me of another quote.

                            "Many people think it impossible for guerillas to exist for long in the enemy's rear. Such a belief reveals lack of comprehension of the relationship that should exist between the people and the troops. The former may be likened to water and the latter to the fish who inhabit it. How may it be said that these two cannot exist together? It is only undisciplined troops who make the people their enemies and who, like the fish out of its native element, cannot live."

                            Guerillas do not move about like water and slowly dissolve the opposition through small actions like you suggest, they move about in the water (the civilians) and simply persist. They aren't (well, i really can't speak for the 'insurgents' in Iraq - but generally speaking) fighting a military war, they are fighting a political war. Their objective is not to defeat their enemies on the field of battle - it's to harrass them, demoralize them, and turn people against them, so that their occupation is impossible.
                            Rethink Refuse Reduce Reuse

                            Do It Ourselves

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by Drachasor


                              Oh, and all the insurgents died in Mosul? They didn't accomplish anything there? They've now penned themselves up there and won't be able to leave? You mean the military is there sweeping them out and they are holding their ground?

                              Oh, it's no, no, no, and no. They've lost nothing by attacking Mosul,
                              In fact 30 of them have been reported killed in Mosul already, and they dont seem to have left yet. Meanwhile Iraqi and US troops are rushing to Mosul, where I presume another cordon will established. This time it should be easier, as the insurgents wont have prepared as they did in Fallujah. As for disrupting Mosul, reports ive seen indicate that the Kurdish and Turkmen parts of the city are NOT disrupted. And police stations have been recaptured in the Sunni Arab sections. Whenever and whereever the insurgent concentrate their losses to gains ratios is far higher than when they pursue small attacks with IEDs, etc.


                              Mao indicated, IIRC, that you attack in small groups, until the other guy is close collapse. A 500 man assault at this point doesnt make sense.
                              "A person cannot approach the divine by reaching beyond the human. To become human, is what this individual person, has been created for.” Martin Buber

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by General Ludd



                                And how many more have been recruited in that time?

                                And how many more people - in Iraq and abroad - will be inclined to join them in the future after seeing the foreign occupants fighting through the streets and demolishing buildings?



                                You remind me of another quote.

                                "Many people think it impossible for guerillas to exist for long in the enemy's rear. Such a belief reveals lack of comprehension of the relationship that should exist between the people and the troops. The former may be likened to water and the latter to the fish who inhabit it. How may it be said that these two cannot exist together? It is only undisciplined troops who make the people their enemies and who, like the fish out of its native element, cannot live."

                                Guerillas do not move about like water and slowly dissolve the opposition through small actions like you suggest, they move about in the water (the civilians) and simply persist. They aren't (well, i really can't speak for the 'insurgents' in Iraq - but generally speaking) fighting a military war, they are fighting a political war. Their objective is not to defeat their enemies on the field of battle - it's to harrass them, demoralize them, and turn people against them, so that their occupation is impossible.
                                thats exactly my point, and it doesnt seem consistent with the large insurgent attack on Mosul (as opposed to smaller attacks). Which leads me to beleive either the insurgents dont understand these fundamental priniples of guerilla war (which is what i meant by being stupid) or they are desperate.
                                "A person cannot approach the divine by reaching beyond the human. To become human, is what this individual person, has been created for.” Martin Buber

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X