Pissed off at attack on Falluja in Iraq.

[steerpike]

I’ve just been reading different news reports from different news groups, most of which suggest that the attack on Falluja will help pave the way for Iraqi elections in January.

See, this is the bit I don’t get – HOW can a full scale attack on any city contribute in any way toward a safer environment, and at that, how is this attack helping toward a future election in Iraq? Maybe Im just being really thick and missing the point of the whole thing, but can someone please explain to me the logic behind it as it’s completely lost on me.

I mean, does the follwing really make sense to you?

‘US and Iraqi officials hope the assault, deeply unpopular with some Iraqis, will help prepare the way for elections in January.’ (from the Beeb)

…WTF?!! yeah, we're gonna demolish (or 'cleanse' as I've read some commentators put it) your entire neighbourhood so we can have an election in 2 months time


*angry young student wants some explanation*

[Mr Comedy]

Kofi Annan has expressed exactly the same fear as you. I agree that there does not seem to be a valid reason, but let us consider the long term implications.

Fallujah currently has 2,500 insurgents in it, which spread a culture of fear. These insurgents are all from the same faction, and Fallujah before (and hopefully after) has 120,000 occupants.
Now, are they going to vote for the person who they think would do the best job at running the country, or the people around the corner with the mortar and AK47s?

The idea behind securing the city for elections is that this large bias will be removed. How successful it will be however, is a matter for open discussion.

[hr]I used to be funny, now I am just old

[Rilla]

[s]steerpike wrote on 13:29, 9th Nov 2004:
*angry young student wants some explanation*


I completely agree, steerpike. I feel so angry and useless when I think about the situation in Iraq, or anywhere else in the world where innocent people are literally having bombs dropped on them. That is why we are holding a peace vigil in st andrews on november 27th 1-2 pm. It's a very small way of saying that we think what is happening is wrong. Please contact me for any more information.



[hr]
Anything War can do, Peace can do better

[LonelyPilgrim]

Well, to play Devil's Advocate...

1. Elections - at the moment Fallujah seems to be the epicenter of the insurgency. The insurgents don't believe in democracy, and have an iron grip on the city. It would be impossible for polls and election workers to even set up voting sites in the city, let alone for the people to actually vote. Likewise, an election that just leaves out bits of the country would lack legitimacy, so the assault is an attempt to restore government control and get some order reinstated so that the city can participate in the electoral process.

2. Innoccent people? Hmmm... what about the aid workers who keep getting their heads hacked off by the insurgents? I'm sure those poor folks were just pure evil and deserved what they got, let's give the insurgents a cookie for good civic responsibility and cleaning up the streets. Seriously, though, yes, civilians get killed in an assault, but considering that without us, the place would likely be a civil war and many many more civilians would get killed (after all we do *try* not to kill them) I certainly can not accept that as a legitimate reason not to remove these criminals, murderers, thugs, and terrorists.

3. It's just like if some horrible gang took over your home town and imposed their will on you. You would want your government to clean them out. However, if they are armed with machine guns, rpg's, etc... you surely wouldn't expect your police forces to root them out with billy clubs, would you?

I do not feel that we should have gone to Iraq, but now that we are there, we have a duty to set things at least partially in order. We can't do that if we go around ignoring places like Fallujah and leaving them be.

[KateBush]

War is wrong, it's as simple as that.

also wrong is sending out members of the Black Watch who are British (predominantly Scottish, actually) to fight on behalf of America. this is the United States' war, not ours. Why don't they send american cannonfodder out instead of Scottish?

you know, one of the young men killed at the weekend had left the army, and only joined up again when he found out his girlfriend/wife was pregnant. he couldn't get any jobs locally, so thought he'd go back to the army to save up for the birth of his child. Everyone says "these guys know what they're doing when they sign up, they know they might be called up for duty." Yeah, but you know what? How many people sign up because they can't find gainful employment anywhere else, and join the forces purely to earn a living? Is any job worth giving your life for?

what did people die for 90 years ago, when Kitchener told the BEF the war would be over by Christmas and the men could come home to their families? All these years on, the same shit is being spouted...."We don't expect it to go on beyond Christmas."

Yeah, great. Most people don't expect to be blown to smithereens in an explosion caused by a suicide bomber, or to be killed by a guy who decides to sit his car on the tracks at a level crossing. But it's happened.

What REALLY riles me about this is, people assume that pacifists/conscientious objectors like me object to war to try and insult the troops out there. It's not like that atall...i object because I think that life is precious, and troops should not be sent out to Iraq like lambs to the slaughter. It's precisely because I care about these people that I want them back in Britain, safe and with their families. My brother could have been out there is he was in the forces, and if anything happened to him, I would die myself. I can't imagine how awful it would be.

You know what makes me really bloody livind? Tony Blair offering his apologies to the families of those killed. Big fucking deal. you think that's going to take away the terrible and immeasurable loss that YOU have enabled, by sending out young guys as cannonfodder, you bloody Bush-lapdog? HELL NO!

Phew, that feels better. I wish tony Blair was in the room with me, so I could say all that to his FACES. Both of them, as everyone knows he has TWO.

I'm wearing a white poppy this year, to mark my stance against violence. I know too many hypocrites who wear red poppies to remember those who died in past wars, to prove that their lives weren't lost in vain, and yet simultaneously condone repeating history all over again. I'd rather remember those who lost their lives by standing up for freedom and life, than by agreeing with a pointless war, and a red poppy sticking to my coat.

[Manic23]

[s]KateBush wrote on 16:32, 9th Nov 2004:


You know what makes me really bloody livind? Tony Blair offering his apologies to the families of those killed. Big fucking deal. you think that's going to take away the terrible and immeasurable loss that YOU have enabled, by sending out young guys as cannonfodder, you bloody Bush-lapdog? HELL NO!




"My thoughts and prayers are with the families who are experiencing this unimaginable grief..."

Is there any person on the planet who actually believes this to be true? Because, personally, I think it's a load of bollocks.

Wanker.

[random]

[s]Manic23 wrote on 16:45, 9th Nov 2004:
[s]KateBush wrote on 16:32, 9th Nov 2004:[i]


You know what makes me really bloody livind? Tony Blair offering his apologies to the families of those killed. Big fucking deal. you think that's going to take away the terrible and immeasurable loss that YOU have enabled, by sending out young guys as cannonfodder, you bloody Bush-lapdog? HELL NO!




"My thoughts and prayers are with the families who are experiencing this unimaginable grief..."

Is there any person on the planet who actually believes this to be true? Because, personally, I think it's a load of bollocks.

Wanker.
[/i]



Well let's vote him out then.

[MisterGrumps]

[/i]
Well let's vote him out then.
[/i]

And replace him with who exactly??!! If the only other feasible options are Kennedy or Howard then Blair is really sitting pretty!

[Zombie Sheep]

We could always take the sensible option and vote for the SNP up here! Independence!!!

[hr]Take part in conservation work around the globe next summer - Bute Lecture B, Tuesday 23rd November, 5pm.

[Colin]

[s]Zombie Sheep wrote on 17:41, 9th Nov 2004:
We could always take the sensible option and vote for the SNP up here! Independence!!!



You know the world is in a mess when the SNP is the sensible option.

[Zombie Sheep]

And why would that be?

[hr]Take part in conservation work around the globe next summer - Bute Lecture B, Tuesday 23rd November, 5pm.

[Prophet Tenebrae]

Because they've taken quite a couple of plays straight from the tories - massive internal divisions, unpopular leaders, digging up their new leader etc.

Honestly, I'd have thought that SNP supporters would have learned that St. Andrews is filled to overflowing with Unionists who would probably only see Scotland independent (I can't even imagine how they'd feel about it being ruled by the SNP) over their cold, dead bodies.

[steerpike]

[s]LonelyPilgrim wrote on 15:58, 9th Nov 2004:[i]
Well, to play Devil's Advocate...

3. It's just like if some horrible gang took over your home town and imposed their will on you. You would want your government to clean them out. However, if they are armed with machine guns, rpg's, etc... you surely wouldn't expect your police forces to root them out with billy clubs, would you?

****

- No I would expect a better and more sophisticated solution from the most powerful country in the world. If George Bush really was an exceptional leader, he would have found a solution not to go to war. Can we – the most developed nations in the world – find no other solution to this issue than to trash Falluja? Are we really that THICK? It’s like if a terrorist group decided to target the Royal heir they’d probably just strike St Andrews wouldn’t they? The same can be applied to Faluja – attacking the city in the name of rooting out ONLY a select minority. well Im sorry, but that’s the TERRORIST approach, NOT the approach of a supposedly civilised countries like the USA and Britain. C'mon – cant we do better than resort to this massacre?

OMG - we’re turning into terrorists ourselves...

[Robo]

Gotta say, LonelyPilgrim is absolutely spot on. No, maybe we shouldnt have attacked iraq in the first place, but its done now, and we just got to make the best we possibly can out of it for the iraq people.

Just to add to LonelyPilgrims arguements, if left alone, Falluja will act as a "safe-haven" for terrorists and criminals, allowing them to make rapid attacks on Allied forces, after which they could retreat to the safety of Falluja. This would result in a constantly high death-toll until basically the day we leave (if we ever do!!!). Surrounding and isolating the city has been proposed, but that is a massive operation that would demand a huge amount of allied resources, that frankly we cant afford. It would also mean we would basically have to stay there forever.

And of course am sure the majority of the people in Falluja just want a quiet life, which there not going to get if its packed to the brim with terrorists and criminals.

Basically, no matter how messy, we started the job and now we have a duty to finish it.

[hr]"The trouble with the world is that the stupid are cocksure and the intelligent are full of doubt." --Bertrand Russell

"There's not a doubt in my mind." --George W. Bush

[Colin]

[s]Prophet Tenebrae wrote on 19:39, 9th Nov 2004:
Because they've taken quite a couple of plays straight from the tories - massive internal divisions, unpopular leaders, digging up their new leader etc.


Plus generally spouting the sort of rubbish which is OK if you are a fringe party at westminster and not expecting anyone to take you seriously, but not so good if you are realistically looking to be in power (or even the official opposition) at Holyrood.


Honestly, I'd have thought that SNP supporters would have learned that St. Andrews is filled to overflowing with Unionists who would probably only see Scotland independent (I can't even imagine how they'd feel about it being ruled by the SNP) over their cold, dead bodies.


Not that I would count myself amongst their ranks, but I still wouldn't trust the SNP to organise a piss up in a distillery. Too many different opinions under the broad umbrella of independance.

[David Bean]

[s]Manic23 wrote on 16:45, 9th Nov 2004:
"My thoughts and prayers are with the families who are experiencing this unimaginable grief..."

Is there any person on the planet who actually believes this to be true? Because, personally, I think it's a load of bollocks.

Wanker.

I believe it. I don't like Tony Blair, I don't agree with him about a lot of things, but I believe that every time someone is killed or injured because of a decision he has made, he feel it, all right.

I do wish the anti-war brigade wouldn't assume that it has the monopoly on common decency and humanity.

[hr]
"Fiat justicia ruat colelum (Let justice be done though the heavens may fall)" - Judge James Horton (family motto)

[LonelyPilgrim]

But of course they have to assume that, Mr. Bean. If they just for one moment accepted the theory that maybe those who direct this war were also decent/God-fearing/reasonable persons, then they would have to accept the remote possibility that maybe the war does make sense and that maybe they are the ones who are confused and wrong.

I can do that. I can say the war was a mistake, but accept that it may not have been. But the extreme anti-war folks, they can't do that, because if they actually accepted that logic, then they wouldn't be able to condemn the war or it's leaders with the sort of holier than thou righteous fury that makes them feel like superior moral or intellectual beings. Because after all, what's the point in being correct if you can't be *better* as well?

My views:

The war, wrong? Probably.

Did we conduct it wrong? I'd say yes.

Did we plan it enough? Heck, no!

Do we have a duty to fix it as best we can? Not a doubt in my mind.

Would it be disasterous for us to pull out now? Pretty sure it would be.

[harmless loony]

One man's insurgent/terrorist is another man's freedom fighter.

Who is Allawi to decide to blow the crap out of a place with hundreds or thousands of residents? He's just the American puppet placed there to keep the west happy.

No Iraqi has had a say in any of what is going on in their country. This seriously annoys me.

[LonelyPilgrim]

That's because the country is full of armed and angry radicals who have absolutely no desire to partake in any sort of legetimate political process.

The imposition of the Law is always done with the business end of a gun, until everyone realises that terror, violence, and hatred against their government and fellow citizens is not effective. It has been the same in every society, we just aren't too used to seeing it these days.

We are trying to make sure that the Iraqis can have a say in their elections. If we left or did nothing, then extremists, former Ba'athists, or simply the religiously fanatic would ensure that the country degenerated into a bloodbath that would make the current situation look like sandbox play.

And then, of course, the world would blame us for not having the 'moral backbone' to stay. We don't listen to anti-war critics and pacifists and the European left anymore because we have learned that no matter what course of action we take on any issue, we will be rhetorically crucified for it. You want us to take you seriously, learn to pick your battles.

[The Cellar Bar]

ah, me the old "pacifists and European Left" "argument" again. Readily trotted out along with the "it don't matter what we do, you'll crucify us" lament. If it wasn't so formualic, it would be interesting. O'Reilly has done a good job, by the sounds of it.

Take a look around and you'll see that it's not just the "European Left" who've seen through this junket. Practically the whole of the rest of the world has as well. The Czech Republic, Poland, Italy and already Spain will have pulled their troops out because their populations don't see the point in fighting your battles for you. Pretty soon, the Coalition will be naked for all the world to see. Just Bliar and Bush. And a growing pile of Scottish bodies because, like it or not, we can't pick our own battles. Otherwise we wouldn't be putting good lives on the line to bail Bush and his hot air inflated blusterings out of the mire.