**** "... We Will Be Back In Fallujah ..." ****

Iraq Forum

http://www.cnn.com/interactive/world/0403/gallery.fallujah.killing/4.fallujah.attack.ap.jpg

"We are not going to do a pell-mell rush into the city," Kimmitt said. "It's going to be deliberate. It will be precise and it will be overwhelming. We will not rush in to make things worse. We will plan our way through this and we will re-establish control of that city -- and we will pacify that city ."

-Brig. Gen. Mark Kimmitt 4/1/04

http://i.a.cnn.net/cnn/2004/WORLD/meast/04/01/iraq.main/story.kimmit.jpg

Right on, General.

I heard on the radio news this morning that U.S. Marines are going to spearhead the initial punch. Ewww-Raaah!

My prayer is for a tactical nuclear strike on the evil ones in Fallujah. And it is more than just a few dozen that possess this evil.

Marines to do Fallujah I hear...

“It will be deliberate, it will be precise and it will be overwhelming.”
—Brig. Gen. Mark Kimmitt

Poor and pathetic morrons !! Why have you ousted Saddam then ? He did the job as well as you want it to be done !

SADDAM / conservative clowns = same fight

Are you kidding?

Saddam: totures rapes and kills thousands.

US: liberates and frees the innocent Iraqis.

At this point my only concern is for my American brothers who are getting shot at for no reason. Everything else is secondary.

Advance said "Saddam tortures, rapes and kills thousands",

Yes with the help from successive US governments from 1969-90, who armed the clot and looked the other way when Hussein's military gassed the people of Hullabjah.

Preston.

Sordidmesh,

It was barbaric behaviour at Fallujah, however, look at it from the Iraqis point of view: the Americans are perceived as being the invaders, the so-called insourgents are only doing what comes perfectly naturally: to defend one's territory from an invading force. Think what the American people would do if a swarm of Iraqis came wasping into their country on the ludicrous pretext of WMD.

Preston the brave.

Yes with the help from successive US governments from 1969-90, who armed the clot .....

No it didn't psycho. Iraq's main weapons supplier=USSR (and later, Russia).

Preston the brave.

Brave enough to post idiotic posts on Inreview, i guess.....

The US army will have for sure to kill a lot of "evil" Shiites, just like Saddam did in 1991. Same cause, same method, same result.

...... You a friend of Pressed-on, by any chance?

The only people who WANT to kill are the followers of Saddam, Sestani and Sadr. American troops do not want to kill. It's their job.

Yeah if you get fired on you fire back and aftre what happend to those guys who got dismemberd then somehting had to be done. Only problem is that it is getting pretty volatile out there apparently ther is fighting in most major cities 12 marines dead one helicoptor brought down, Ukrainanes ahve had to puall out of there area, some Poles want back up ASAP after catching that guy and there seems to be sign of it calming down. Hate to say this but Fallujah wont end this trouble if anything it has started off again.

xxxxxxxxxxx

Monsieur Jukovette, my pet poodle,

According to the Stockholm International Peace Institute and the US State Department, during the period (1973-2001), the US armed over twenty different countries that had links with terrorism/freedom fighters and appalling human rights’ records Countries including: Algeria, Syria, Colombia, Haiti, Zaire, Indonesia, Peru, Pakistan, Lebanon, SriLanka, Israel, Philippines, Iran, Uzbekistan and IRAQ. Just for the record, the US government in 1990, aware of the gassing of the Kurds, sold Hussein’s government $1,652,000 worth of weapons.

Yes, the USSR was Iraq's main weapons' supplier, however, the USA also continued to supply Iraq with WMD up until 1990. The gas that was used against the Kurds at Hullabjah, according to the British political commentator in Iraq, Robert Fisk, was American material.

The US is a military economy. WMD sales is the backbone of its economy. It is a WMD prostitute, just like many other so-called democratic states world wide.

Preston the invincible.

Did the US media fail to tell you blokes that a week before those US contractors were killed in Fallujah, the US military killed four inoccent Iraqi passengers in a car.

More US military pantomime and nuisance making

Preston Likely

The jokes on Bush! Didn't he say "Hostilities have ceased." What an A$$$!

"Saddam: totures rapes and kills thousands."

But it seems like some of the millions he didn't torture and rape, still prefer him to U.S. occupation.

"US: liberates and frees the innocent Iraqis."

Whether they want it or not.

According to the Stockholm International Peace Institute and the US State Department, during the period (1973-2001), the US armed over twenty different countries that had links with terrorism/freedom fighters and appalling human rights’ records

So did UK, France, Germany, Russia, and many many other exporters of conventional weaponry. What's your point, you the pointless creature?

Countries including: Algeria, Syria, Colombia, Haiti, Zaire, Indonesia, Peru, Pakistan, Lebanon, SriLanka, Israel, Philippines, Iran, Uzbekistan and IRAQ. Just for the record, the US government in 1990, aware of the gassing of the Kurds, sold Hussein’s government $1,652,000 worth of weapons.

Whered you get that from? And btw, it is known that especially in 1990 main supplier of weapons to iraq was Russia. So if USA sold Iraq $1 million worth of weapons and now corrects it's past mistakes, what about Russia with it's billions in weapons sales and opposition to dictators' toppling?

Yes, the USSR was Iraq's main weapons' supplier, however, the USA also continued to supply Iraq with WMD up until 1990.

my dear friend. It did not.

The gas that was used against the Kurds at Hullabjah, according to the British political commentator in Iraq, Robert Fisk, was American material.

This Fisk guy has gotta be some kind of a weapons sales expert.

The US is a military economy. WMD sales is the backbone of its economy. It is a WMD prostitute, just like many other so-called democratic states world wide.

Yep. Unlike truly democratic Iraq with it's democratically elected Saddam Hussein, victim of western corporate interest.

Did the US media fail to tell you blokes that a week before those US contractors were killed in Fallujah, the US military killed four inoccent Iraqi passengers in a car.

You know better.

Jukovette, geezer,

I know exactly who sold what to Iraq in terms of arms' sales. The reason I highlighted US WMD sales to Iraq is because I want to show those Americans on this sight (those who insist on drearily ranting on about the purity of America) that the US is no worse or no better than say France, Russia, Britain, Germany and all the other countries out there who sold/sell arms to countries of ill repute, but exactly the same. The US is doing what all powerful countries do: looking after it's own interests. This is standard human behaviour, but to dress it up in the appellation "democracy" is denigrating the word.

The US will never be a great country in terms of a democratic force because it has not risen above the level of ordinariness (exploiting areas of strategic interest ie. areas where natural resources lie). This has been the ordinary behaviour of nearly all previous empires: British, Japanese, Russian, German, Turkish, Austro-Hungarian etc. So, please, you "God Bless America" mob, stop trying to convince the rest of the world that you're better than the rest of the world because you're not. You're ordinary.

Robert Fisk has seen it all. He's one of the most experienced Iraqi reporters on the planet, having lived and reported from Iraq for countless years. He's well respected in US media circles.

Preston

Why on earth do many media people keep quacking the line: "since the end of the war"?

Personally I prefer the word invasion to war, however, this isn't my point.

As far as I'm concerned the invasion/war is unfolding right before our eyes at this very juncture in time. The fighting has never being so aggressive. The Invasion/war is still continuing. Are we measuring the end of the war/invasion on the basis of what that witless wonder, Bush, said on the USS Lincoln last May. If so, it is wrong to use this as a yardstick The Iraq War/Invasion has stopped since last March. It is still continuing. The history books had better get this fact right.

Bush was wishful thinking last May whe he chimpanzeed his way across that USS Lincoln and furballed the statement referring to the end of the conflict. But the truth is, he was wrong. The war/invasion is only just beginning, and the American army know it, but the Bush government continue to parrot the same lie to its - "that's it's all under control" - not!

Preston the loudspeaker of new perspectives.

Preston, there were no US WMD sales to Iraq. Admit it. Also each and every country follow their own interest regardless of how weak or powerfull, and democracy being even a secondary outcome is still good. I am not convincing anybody of anything, you "God damn America" psycho. Read my post and then reply to it.

Jukovette my beautiful chum,

According to John Pilger (political commentator and the first Western reporter to unearth the atrocities in Pol Pot's Cambodia in 1975) , Greg Palast (American writer and investigative journalist), Robert Fisk (leading British political commentator), Mark Hertegaard (American writer, who wrote "In The Shadow Of The Eagle"), SahTony Benn (Labour politician) America, during the Iran/Iraq war (1980-88), supplied arms to Iraq. I don't know what your idea of WMD are, but the US also supplied gas to the Hussein regime and other weapons of destruction and terror. The US continued to supply Iraq weapons up until 1990. Off the record it was the CIA who helped to lever Hussein into power in 1969.

Rumsfeld met Hussein several times to orchestrate military deals with Hussein. Washington considered Hussein an ally up until 1990, just as they considered Bin Laden an ally during the Afghanistan/Russian war (1979-89).

Hussein was on the ropes several times during his reign, however, both the US and Britain (not to mention others) propped the madman up, overlooking minor horror show incidents like the gassing of the Kurds at Hullabjah in 1988. But it did not serve in Americas interests then to report the atrocities at Hullabjah becasue Hussein was then a useful pawn in America's interests in the Middle East. The gassing of the Kurds ownly became useful to America when Bush used it as an excust to invade Iraq. A case of selective morality and memory.

Preston the Psycho (psychoanalyst)

Now stupid Iraqis do like they should do according to the occupiers’ plan: they kill Western military and civilians, burn their corpses and hang them on bridges. The first reaction of Westerners is horror and they demand to take the troops out of Iraq, but the more Iraqis kill Americans and their allies, the quicker a new public opinion emerges in Western countries that the Iraqis should be dealt with all possible weapons available, including WMD. In result, the allied troops will receive a carte blanche to use any weapon in their disposal and left journalists together with human rights’ activists will have to put their tongues into their asses seeing how the Arabs is bashed with the whole spectrum of modern weaponry.

What idiot is saying we should use WMDs on the Iraqis that has to be without a sahdow of a doubt one of the most ignorant ideas I have heard. Would that not be hypocritical as well? we go into Iraq to destroy the eviol WMDs because Sadamm could have usede them on innocent civilians and now we should use them to kill fighters and inncoent civilians.

Truth is, nuking the Arab world is the only way to win with Bush's attitude. Let's look at it logically, the Bush/Neocon mentallity is that you have to have unflinching, never ending support for Israel, you can't ever negotiate with terrorists, you should never change anything about your policy that you feel might be viewed as "appeasing" terrorist, you should never look at yourself or your own country as being in any way responsible for anything, you believe your way is best and that others should be coerced to have a culture like your's, you will NEVER compromise on ANYTHING even to the tiniest degree. This is the mentallity and philosophy of the Bush crowd right? If this is the case, nukes are the best option, because to win that way you have pulvarize and batter the enemy to the point that they quit...like they never did in 'Nam! They'll keep fighting out of spite, forever, even after they forget what it's all about just because of that "Bushie" attitude...I know I would. So it's nukes, or accept a perpetual 100 year war. Sure, THEY won't win, they won't be marching down Pennsylvania Avenue, but the way tis thing is playing out, they'll still be counting body bags as the idiots in the Neocon Party celebate at Jenna Bush's inauguration in January of 2036 if Americans don't wise up and quit voting for these RETARDS!.

"We're facing an enemy that's unafraid to fight from behind women and children, from occupied apartment buildings, from protected sites," said a U.S. Marine officer in Fallujah.

Curley Joe:
That Arab tactics was obvious even before the invasion.

NothingSacred:
There is a solution: standard colonial policy of XIX century. Nuking is not necessary, moreover it's bad for the environment.

Trash or not trash - what's the difference?
The problem is in front of you anyway.
What you think it is to be solved with means of conventional military only?

"We're facing an enemy that's unafraid to fight from behind women and children, from occupied apartment buildings, from protected sites," said a U.S. Marine officer in Fallujah."

As an INTELLIGENT person, I'D DO THE SAME. If you don't have equal firepower there are 2 choices...

1) QUIT.

2) Or devise tactics to succeed by being willing to use ANY means neccesary.

Protected areas? SCREW THAT! If I'm outgunned, I'm setting up my machine gun nest in a kindergarten and daring you to shoot back! QUIT? 'F' you! I'm not quitting. You shoot back at the kindergarten, then my media wing calls YOU a "baby killer" to garner sympathy FOR ME...Anyways, that's how I would fight if I was in their shoes.

The people you speak about usually called not "intelligent" but with somewhat stronger words.

About the media: it also can be easily controlled. Switching Al-Jazeera from the satellites isn't the hardest thing.
Or may be, seizing their office...

But what do you suggest if you want to fight and don't want to give in. You can't go toe-to-toe with a tank or an F-16 with an AK-47 in your hand? If you don't go unconventional you're only choice is to quit and not fight back at all?

"So is it your mentality that anything goes for Arabs but the US must play by the rules?"

No, not at all, if Arabs occupied my neighborhood and I didn't want them there, I'd gladly hang one or 2 from a bridge and burn their bodies to send a message.

If you can have an automatic rifle, why can't you have a grenade launcher? There isn't a big difference. Even a grenade will do. By the way storming cities with tanks is a bad tactics.

I've just heard on the news that humvis with loud speakers have been spreading the message round Fallujah to "get out of Fallujah by sunset or die" - and apparently there is thousands trying to leave. I think the city has a population of 250,000.

Fallugah is under siege, no one going in or out, 300000 peoples live there, what do you think in your opinion a fight should go?? Civilians in one side and fighters on the other?? Keep in mind that they are not a regular army, the fighters families are living in THEIR city Fallugah, so it is not hiding behind any one it is their families, their city their land and they are surrounded.

What are you babbling about, asantana? Bake yourself those chocolate chip cookies and settle down.

If New York was surrounded by an army and the American people want to defend New York how would they do?? Request the other army to give chance and find an empty land so they can take the fight away from women and children?? Or fight from where they are??

Curley
I am still waiting for your answer

Curley
You disappointed me

I know it's not entirely relevant at this point but is this "fighting from behind women and children" thing not a two way street? One hides, the other fires. Either way....

***U.S. Marines were allowing only women and children to leave the city, while allowing humanitarian supplies, such as food and medical supplies, to enter.***

This statement ranges from .au news to bbc to msnbc, to cnn, to reuters, to everything else i have located.

Many of the so-called "insurgents" have behaviours and motivations that are not that clear. It is perhaps easy to name them "resistants" but deserving to be called so required to face brutal repression and proven contempt for people's life in an occupied country. Civilians fighting the gestapo in the 40's occupied Europe were resisting to the eviliest of humans ever been.
The situation in Iraq is quite different. Even though the US forces may reply with a (too) heavy hand to attacks, the insurgents have unclear motives, while the imams calling to war on pretense of djihad are just warlords seeking for political power in these troubled times. This Sadr cheick individual would have had his head cutted off under Saddam. Now it seems profitable to call for war on "evil" occupiers.
There is no justification in committing acts of desecration these criminals did with the contractors' bodies.

One poster some time ago made an observatrion that I thought was quite profound and brilliant. He said, and I am paraphrasing, "The real reason why people around the world so bitterly vilify U.S. global policies—and the U.S in general—is that all the governments of these people are so potentially corrupt that if placed in the position of such power that the U.S. exercises, each of these governments would be expected to be nothing but the villain that they accuse the U.S. to be."

It's lonely at the top, but the view is much clearer.

Please explain the connection between your last post and my comment above, Curley. I don't see it. Is it too much asking to you to read carefully what the others write prior to rant on with the same irrelevant comments in every thread ?

"Poster" even got 25 reward points for that post.

JY I was wondering the same thing after I read Curley's response to your last post and I chuckled out loud. People around me thought I was crazy..

Really though I appreciate your well balanced arguments. I think I agree with you about 98% of the time. The other 2% you present seem to be plausible when you do present it and certainly I re-check my own position sometimes.

However Curley and Mr J though at minimal times may find ourselves on the same side of the point (but still distant) they totally subscribe to the "ball measuring contest" mentality. I find it disturbing that we could have people in our governing body with this thought process too.

This thing with Iraq is a mess. As you see with the start of this thread people here simply believe it's about being the strongest instead of justice. Iraq I don't forsee getting any better anytime soon and our shortsightedness in this endeavor has a price to pay for it...unfortunately.

Stand by for Curly to give us the quote from his little poster again.

Actually to save him time I will do it for him:

The reason why people around the world so bitterly villify U.S. global policies - and the US in general - is that all the governments of these people are so potentially corrupt that if placed in the position of such power that the US exercises, each of these governments each of these governments would be expected to be nothing but the villian that they accuse the US to be.

Now JY and pecae why dont you to anti americans go pound some sand for a while

An American reporter (who works for the Observer newspaper in Britain) who was in Fallujah up until yesterday, said that it is in a state of chaos. He said that the Americans will not resolve the Iraqi issue because they have too many enemies and are too quick to adopt violence, as opposed to the British military's diplomatic approach (this comes from years of experience in Northern Ireland and Cyprus etc).

The prince of Jordan also said that more US troops in Iraq will lead to more violence, and more violence the recruitment of more Iraq freedom fighters, which in turn will inspire the US government to send more US troops to Iraq; which will lead to more violence, and the the recruitment of more Iraqi freedom fighters, ad infinitum. He said that unless the UN is given full political control Iraq will collapse into a horrific pantomime similar to that of the on-going Palestine and Israel conflict. But, hey, let the American military continue to kick doors down and murder innocent women and children willy nilly in the style of the Israelis. And just how many 11th of Septembers have the US inflicted upon Iraq over the course of the last year with its WMD? (tanks, F16, helicopter gunships, cluster bombs, Depleted Uranium bombs etc).

Unfortunately, having seen how arrogant both the US government and military are, it's difficult to care a jot about the Americans in Iraq. I mean, when has anybody cared about imperialist invaders? Seems like the US government is reaping what it sewed, and, with hope, will not be re-elected because of the seedy invasion of a defenceless third-world country built upon the sandy assumption of Iraq WMD.

Preston

The actor and writer, Peter Ustinov once said:

"Terrorism is the war of the poor and powerless; war is the terrorism of the rich and powerful."

How right this is when we think of the United States of America over the course of the last fifty years.

Bush was playing the unmitigated liar again last night when he cynically addressed the American nation. He furballed a load of hocus pocus when he stated that the same people fighting the American military in Fallujah were the same people as those who planted those bombs in Spain. This was the witless wonder (Bush) at his utmost worst. He was desperately trying to create the fictitious link between Al Qaeda and Iraq again. Of course, there will be millions of halfwit Republicans out there who'll think "Spain, Iraq, oh, boy, that means Al Qaeda again, better had support Bush, uuh!".

Many of those people who are defending Fallujah might just be ordinary Iraqis who do not take kindly to being invaded by imperialists.

If Al Qaeda have engaged in Iraq it's because the Americans have created the situation by turning Iraq into a fertile terrain for Middle Eastern freedom fighters to prosper.

There is obviously condensation inside the skull of Bush and for all those who hang on to his every word. Be brave - be sceptical.

Preston.

Everyone should shut up and realize that a democratic Middle East needs to happen, no matter how long it takes. The only real democratic state in that part of the world is Israel, and without our backing, would have been demolished years ago.

The question is whether the Iraqi want a democracy?
Maybe, Saddam Hussein was a normal ruler for them. He did just the other rulers had done - nothing unusual.

Taking civilians hostage isn't a civilised practice. They are just making the US troops to step down to their level.

Guess, how troops of a Muslim country would act in the Fallujah case? IMO they've erased Fallujah from Earth's face a week ago.

Sordidmesh,

Democracy is not about occupying other countries' territories (Israel/West Bank, Gaza Strip, US/Iraq). Israel is an occupying force and should not be used as a model of democracy. Certain Israeli's hold the same disrespect for Arabs as the Germans had for Jews.

And you cannot foist democracy upon the Middle East. Certain countries in the Middle East have been non-democratic for hundreds of years. Just imagine how difficult it would be if Arabs tried to foist their political ideology upon the United Sates - you would react with equal anger.

The one thing certain Americans must get into their arrogant heads is the fact that most of the world beyond Americashire does not want to follow your extreme economic model. You may be a democratic nation in name, however, you have a capitalistic system that is underpinned by corporate fascism, which, in turn, suffocates democracy. Your workers are slaves, only having two weeks' holiday a year, hence the reason why there are so many obese Americans because you are, on the whole, a very unhappy nation.

Preston.

Sordidmesh:

I never thought that people, who should work much time, or unhappy, tend to be obese...

Much work and sorrow usually make people slim...

For many Americans, the American Dream has turned them into slaves, forever chasing after material goods that leave them forever unsatisfied and, therefore, psychologically damaged and miserable, hence the reason many of them are addicted to junk food in order to fill a hole that the materialist tape worm has created.

Preston

BarbedWire,

Isn't it amazing how us Brits have become exstinct, all 60 million of us, and, I mean, isn't it amazing how nobody speaks English any more. Hilarious. Maybe instead I'll adopt that other dead language, what's it called now? oh yes, cyrillic, which nobody but those forgotten Russians use. Well, I say Russians but really Russia is just an extension of the US - the United States of Russia. Tut, tut.

My advice to you is to learn English before you start writing on this site. I can't make any sense from your posts.


Preston

"Terrorism is the war of the poor and the powerless; war is the terrorism of the rich and powerful"

Peter Ustinov

Substitute the words "rich and powerful" with that of Israel and the USA.

Preston the truly brilliant.

You're absolutely right, Pressed-on, we ARE rich and powerful. And you simply can't stand that.

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/t...994506?v=glance

You might want to rethink that definition of Terrorism. I define it as Islamic faithful doing exactly what they are told to do by the "peaceful" Allah and big Mo. Do you notice what all the terrorists have in common? Upon further research you would also learn that the mutilation of bodies, Burning of corpses', kidnapping and killing of ALL infidels, n