Fallujah a *good* thing

[Hellman109]

OK read post before flaming PLEASE.

OK, basically ATM we have Fallujah, it is becoming a central location for where the militants are massing. One pof the problems with fighting an unconventional army/war with terrorists/freedom fighters / choose your title for the fighters in Iraq, is that they are not centralised, they are spread, they melt in.

Now there in Fallujah, massed in more concentration then normal, there not so spread, there more obvious, easier to find. Would this not help a conventional army? It isnt a "last stanza" but it is a big step in irradicationg them, this would reduce the arms and men avaliable for there war, and hopefully break some of there fighting spirit (in that I mean they stop fighting, for whatever reasons, that is the aim).

Main hole I see here is if there *NEW* fighters, not the ones that have been fighting the past few months, just a flare up of tentions in a city that was mainly left without a huge occupying force and was largely circled by the advancing allied army at the start of the war.

Does anyone have any facts if there mainly fighting locals or people moving into the city? also I know after payday last week many of the Iraqi soldiers hired by the americans fled there posts around Fallujah, did they leave there weapons and equipment? did they head in or out of the city? that might point to who the current fighters are.

Ahhh, it's a long shot, but I hope that Fallujah does become a concentration point for the current fighters as that would help a conventional army, it would also overall help the country (fighting localised, less overall damage, etc. etc.) I just feel really sorry for your ordenary citizen in Fallujah, they are living in Hell day after day from what I can see, with no real way out. Leaving your possestions, property, job, land, is not a real way out IMO, but an escape path.

Thoughts?

[aktarian]

Plus it's better for US to fight this battle now instead of, say October or November. ;)

[ShotOver]

They have had too many warning, i say they B-52 them.
Honestly.

[chauncy republicans]

They have had too many warning, i say they B-52 them.
Honestly. :roll:

[ShotOver]

Yeah, it's an immature thing to say.

But when you have terrorists built up in one Area, building defences and ready to hold this town like the Alamo, what more can you do?

Risk the lives of good Marines is getting stupid, it's time to end this **** there.

[HELEX]

Yeah, it's an immature thing to say.

But when you have terrorists built up in one Area, building defences and ready to hold this town like the Alamo, what more can you do?

Risk the lives of good Marines is getting stupid, it's time to end this **** there.

:cantbeli:

They are no Terrorists, they just fight against Occupation.....

[ShotOver]

Insurgent's, whatever.
Still the enemy.

[cold0]

The concetration of so many "insurgent fighters" in the same place it's really a good thing but the Marines must finish the job; the more they kill today at Falluja the less the coalition force would fight in Sunni triangle in the next weeks.

[ShotOver]

Like i said, B-52...

[Dennis G]

nope they are Terrorists. And the United States responses to terrorist acts should make the world gasp!

[khukuri]

hellman,
I agree

when us inavded iraq so easly i became angry, because i knew there were people who would want to fight and they would be ver hard to catch later.

Now theyll alla are gathered again, and easyer to catch

[chauncy republicans]

nope they are Terrorists. And the United States responses to terrorist acts should make the world gasp!
You are an idiot. What makes the insurgents terrorists!? Because they defy the will of the "Almighty United States"!? Just to let you know most of the Iraqi's dont support kidnappings and such, but I'm sure trash like you would prefer them all dead anyway.

[Trident-za]

The concetration of so many "insurgent fighters" in the same place it's really a good thing but the Marines must finish the job; the more they kill today at Falluja the less the coalition force would fight in Sunni triangle in the next weeks.

Just remember that the success of the Iraq war and the war on terror are going to be measured over the next few decades, not weeks. A small point, perhaps.... but it means the US needs to deal with the possible trade-offs between short-term and long-term success. Using a B52 on Falluja would represent a short-term success and a long-term disaster in my opinion. Save a few marine's lives now, and have US troops dying for the next several years.... for me, its not a good trade-off.

[Dennis G]

nope they are Terrorists. And the United States responses to terrorist acts should make the world gasp!
You are an idiot. What makes the insurgents terrorists!? Because they defy the will of the "Almighty United States"!? Just to let you know most of the Iraqi's dont support kidnappings and such, but I'm sure trash like you would prefer them all dead anyway.


Ok first off you liberal piece of **** I don’t want Iraqi innocents to die but those that chose to pick up arms against the US call them what ever the **** you want they are two heads of the same coin insurgents & terrorists those that fight need two in the chest. I’m glad to know most of the Iraqi's don’t support kidnappings and I didn’t need some ass clown to tell me that so **** off.

[Luxembourger]

They are no Terrorists, they just fight against Occupation.....

yes your are right they take hostages and already killed an italian civilian , they are great resistance fighters !!!! :cantbeli:

[HELEX]

yes your are right they take hostages and already killed an italian civilian , they are great resistance fighters !!!!

This is what resistance fighters did all time, so dont be stupid and STFU. :cantbeli:

It's not like 3 American Spys and a cute little french girl destroy a Bridge or Missile Factory like in Hollywood Movies. :roll:

[Mr Gently Benevolent]

nope they are Terrorists. And the United States responses to terrorist acts should make the world gasp!
If these terrorists committed acts against the US I would agree with you Denis but since we are in their country trying to restore some form of democracy and peace I would say that current tempo of warfare was adequate.

[Pille1234]

Yeah, it's an immature thing to say.

But when you have terrorists built up in one Area, building defences and ready to hold this town like the Alamo, what more can you do?

Risk the lives of good Marines is getting stupid, it's time to end this **** there.
No it's not stupid, it's the only way to go. The US are the good guys. The good guys get in, shoot the bad guys and spare the civilians. We all know, the good guy's work is usually harder than the bad guy's. The US might get hurt, but hey, it was the US decision to go into iraq, so they should have known before.

[wholagun]

They have had too many warning, i say they B-52 them.
Honestly.

go look up what happened in Warsaw, and Stalingrad, look at how the enemy was able to chew up armour and troops using the destoryed buildings to thier advantage. You don't wanna destroy buildings cause that only gives enemy a place to hide. Moreover, you there to help the Iraqi's not the destory their homes, carpet bombing isn't a great way to win over hearts and minds.

[Romulus]

win over hearts and minds.

Plus we don't send in Marines to win the hearts and minds of anyone. Marines do one thing "fight till the objective is complete".

[weedman]

Moreover, you there to help the Iraqi's not the destory their homes, carpet bombing isn't a great way to win over hearts and minds.Well, the American industry can rebuild the buildings :lol:

[HELEX]

Plus we don't send in Marines to win the hearts and minds of anyone. Marines do one thing "fight till the objective is complete".

But a Marine still makes a difference between a 5 year old Girl(at least sometimes) and a Resistance fighter, a B-52 not.

[Khabbi]

The B52 carpet bombing is a bad plan , theres like 1 out of 15 persons that are "terrorists" in that city .

Everybody for the B52 plan should visit that city after the bombing and pick up the peices of the women and childen.

[chauncy republicans]

but those that chose to pick up arms against the US call them what ever the f*** you want they are two heads of the same coin insurgents & terrorists those that fight need two in the chest.
So any one who takes up arms against America is a terrorist? Or is that just what you call Arab fighters? I think you mainly use the term terrorist to insult those you dont understand, and those you fear.

[khukuri]

but those that chose to pick up arms against the US call them what ever the f*** you want they are two heads of the same coin insurgents & terrorists those that fight need two in the chest.
So any one who takes up arms against America is a terrorist? Or is that just what you call Arab fighters? I think you mainly use the term terrorist to insult those you dont understand, and those you fear.

people on this board think that not calling a fighter a terrorist had to mean that you like them


morons

[Pooga]

Gawsh dangit, cayan't we hayave a paceful deskushun heyar? Stop callin payple idjits, mmmkay? Ya wanna say sumthin, say it, but ya don't have ta be like "Yer an idjit."

Ah b'leeve that Chauncy started it. Now settle down, folks.

http://www.uktouring.org.uk/ian-mcmillan/gallery/ian-cowboy-2.jpg

Mods can delete the dreadful picture. Be my guest. :D

[Dennis G]

but those that chose to pick up arms against the US call them what ever the f*** you want they are two heads of the same coin insurgents & terrorists those that fight need two in the chest.
So any one who takes up arms against America is a terrorist? Or is that just what you call Arab fighters? I think you mainly use the term terrorist to insult those you dont understand, and those you fear.

I may not always understand them but believe me I do not FEAR them, I really don’t care what you liberal suckers call them it doesn’t matter to me as long as their brains are on the pavement (the ones that fire on US troops that is!) I really don’t care what; let me see if you like this one better "Freedom Fighters" cause is. American forces are there trying to build a democracy. They (your insurgents buddies) want to bring that down they stand in the way of freedom! I care for the Iraqi people that want nothing more then live in a FREE IRAQ!! Part of building a free Iraq is cutting down the terrorists oops sorry Insurgents.

**** off chauncy

[AFACadet]

Since the first uses of air attack, punishment operations (with the exception of the Zepplin and Gotha raids on London during WWI) have had an extremely negitive effect on the outcome. Punishment operations are defined as directly targeting civilians.

Usually, the outcome is 180 degrees from the expected outcome (denial and specific targets are another matter and when done correctly airpower is the most effective tool).



Now, nukes on the other hand are a different story...




In THIS case, bombing the city would be punishment and have a very negitive effect. Denial is unavailable except in a few cases when the insurgents are in a spicific building and civilians are not the target.



The Marines are doing what is best right now, going door-to-door, house-to-house, after specific targets.

[weedman]

[ American forces are there trying to build a democracy. So why don't they focus on this issue instead of provoking the Iraqi citizens?

[army cadet_ngcsu]

That's why I say that if things do not shape up within the next year or so, we just need to abandon our efforts in the South of Iraq and Baghdad area and withdrawl our money and troops and put them into northern Iraq. There, the Kurds (who make up most of the loyal police and army of Iraq) generally like us...as well as the Christians that live there. In the end, it is the Iraqis that have to decide not to follow dumb ass clerics like Sadr and others, they're the ones who have to decide that they want to stop destroying and start building and as of right now, I do not see that happening

[Dennis G]

[ American forces are there trying to build a democracy. So why don't they focus on this issue instead of provoking the Iraqi citizens?

I think they are working on the issues, DONT YOU THINK THAT THESE "Insurgents" SHOULD BE FIRST ON THE LIST!

[weedman]

I think they are working on the issues, DONT YOU THINK THAT THESE "Insurgents" SHOULD BE FIRST ON THE LIST!A great number of these "Insurgents" would just not exist, if Iraq would be sovereign and free country without any occupying troops, who are insulting the citizens by their matrial behaviour.

[Dennis G]

without any occupying troops you think that would work :roll:

[weedman]

without any occupying troops you think that would work :roll:I didn't say this...so do not try to cheat :lol:

I want to aks you a simple question: Where are the Iraqis, who gave the Troops the flowers after the liberation nowadays, and why?

[AFACadet]

Still there and trying to get on with their lives if it were not for the insurgetns keeping them oppressed...

[weedman]

They feel cheated by the US, because the US has promissed so many improvements, but the Iraqis had to realize, that their liberation was not the reason for this war.

[Ratamacue]

They feel cheated by the US, because the US has promissed so many improvements, but the Iraqis had to realize, that their liberation was not the reason for this war.

It's nice to know that we have people on this forum with enough psychic abilities to look into the minds of those who planned the war as well as the people of Iraq.

[weedman]

They feel cheated by the US, because the US has promissed so many improvements, but the Iraqis had to realize, that their liberation was not the reason for this war.

It's nice to know that we have people on this forum with enough psychic abilities to look into the minds of those who planned the war as well as the people of Iraq.It is easy to open your eyes and read sources, but many different sources.

That's all :lol:

[MaDuce]

nope they are Terrorists. And the United States responses to terrorist acts should make the world gasp!
If these terrorists committed acts against the US I would agree with you Denis but since we are in their country trying to restore some form of democracy and peace I would say that current tempo of warfare was adequate.
You must not forget that they are not fighting to "bring some democracy to Iraq" They are trying to create a Islamic theocracy whitch will end up being worde then Saddam

[nerdman]

They feel cheated by the US, because the US has promised so many improvements, but the Iraqis had to realize, that their liberation was not the reason for this war.

Holy Crap, did the Bush administration tell YOU personally what this war is about. Premeditated or not.
Unless you can find a quote of Bush, Cheney, etc. saying, "We invaded Iraq to get their oil," etc, I don't want to hear people talk like they know what this war is about.

****, maybe in a few years if the country of Iraq becomes a subsidiary of ChevronTexaco then you can say it was about oil or capitalistic imperialism.

[weedman]

You must not forget that they are not fighting to "bring some democracy to Iraq" They are trying to create a Islamic theocracy whitch will end up being worde then SaddamIs it your or their country?

Who are you to decide about the will of other peoples?

[Ratamacue]

They feel cheated by the US, because the US has promissed so many improvements, but the Iraqis had to realize, that their liberation was not the reason for this war.

It's nice to know that we have people on this forum with enough psychic abilities to look into the minds of those who planned the war as well as the people of Iraq.It is easy to open your eyes and read sources, but many different sources.

That's all :lol:

What legitimate source has CONFIRMED that liberation had nothing to do with the war?

And don't go off on oil, anyone in the US can vouch for you that given current prices on gasoline, that argument isn't really able to hold water.

[weedman]

Unless you can find a quote of Bush, Cheney, etc. saying, "We invaded Iraq to get their oil," etc, I don't want to hear people talk like they know what this war is about.Just look at the secured buildings and the rebuilding actions after the days of liberation.

[nerdman]

Unless you can find a quote of Bush, Cheney, etc. saying, "We invaded Iraq to get their oil," etc, I don't want to hear people talk like they know what this war is about.Just look at the secured buildings and the rebuilding actions after the days of liberation.

Oil = Rebuilding Money.

[weedman]

Oil = Rebuilding Money.For the US or for the poor citizens of the Iraq?

[nerdman]

Oil = Rebuilding Money.For the US or for the poor citizens of the Iraq?

Dude Rome wasn't built in a day.

[Ratamacue]

Unless you can find a quote of Bush, Cheney, etc. saying, "We invaded Iraq to get their oil," etc, I don't want to hear people talk like they know what this war is about.Just look at the secured buildings and the rebuilding actions after the days of liberation.

Ever considered that maybe restoring Iraq's oil production facilities and pipelines was maybe in order to get a little income flowing into the country? Bush clearly stated in his conference a few days back that all income from oil exports will go to rebuilding the country. Of course, it wouldn't be possible for someone such as yourself to believe that, would it?

The funny thing is that you're one of the few people that I've seen recently talking about "war for oil." It's really a pretty trite and overused argument with very little basis.

[weedman]

Oil = Rebuilding Money.For the US or for the poor citizens of the Iraq?

Dude Rome wasn't built in a day.Nor were the necessary hospitals after the days of liberation, which were very important.

[Ratamacue]

Oil = Rebuilding Money.For the US or for the poor citizens of the Iraq?

Dude Rome wasn't built in a day.Nor were the necessary hospitals after the days of liberation, which were very important.

Hospitals aren't built and staffed in a day either.

[weedman]

Ever considered that maybe restoring Iraq's oil production facilities and pipelines was maybe in order to get a little income flowing into the country? Bush clearly stated in his conference a few days back that all income from oil exports will go to rebuilding the country. Of course, it wouldn't be possible for someone such as yourself to believe that, would it?So why are there so many US companies?

The Iraqis are already into oil business. So when they should get the profits, they can do this by their own companies :lol:

[weedman]

Oil = Rebuilding Money.For the US or for the poor citizens of the Iraq?

Dude Rome wasn't built in a day.Nor were the necessary hospitals after the days of liberation, which were very important.

Hospitals aren't built and staffed in a day either.But equipped with the most important stuff.

[nerdman]

Oil = Rebuilding Money.For the US or for the poor citizens of the Iraq?

Dude Rome wasn't built in a day.Nor were the necessary hospitals after the days of liberation, which were very important.

Hospitals not being secured does not lend itself to answer “what the war was about.” Mistakes were made, no one denies that.

You've got to look at the long run buddy. It would be tough to rebuild any hospitals without a steady flow of cash.

[weedman]

Hospitals not being secured does not lend itself to answer “what the war was about.” Mistakes were made, no one denies that.
But it is a interesting observation, that the Oil-relevant buildings were secured first, compared to other vital-important parts for the Iraqis.

[MaDuce]

Hospitals not being secured does not lend itself to answer “what the war was about.” Mistakes were made, no one denies that.
But it is a interesting observation, that the Oil-relevant buildings were secured first, compared to other vital-important parts for the Iraqis.
Becuase if oil wells where burned Iraq would have no economy and therefor no money and therfor they could not rebuild.

[nerdman]

Hospitals not being secured does not lend itself to answer “what the war was about.” Mistakes were made, no one denies that.
But it is a interesting observation, that the Oil-relevant buildings were secured first, compared to other vital-important parts for the Iraqis.

Dude interesting deosn't answer my question.

I'll say it again, LONG RUN. Yeah I think it was ****ty we didn't plan to resupply, assist, etc. the local hospitals when we arrived. That was defiantly something that could have been planned and paid for. When you lack recourses, in the case man power, sometimes the short run must be sacrificed for the long run... for the greater good.

[weedman]

I'll say it again, LONG RUN. Yeah I think it was ****ty we didn't plan to resupply, assist, etc. the local hospitals when we arrived. That was defiantly something that could have been planned and paid for. When you lack recourses, in the case man power, sometimes the short run must be sacrificed for the long run... for the greater good.But then you don't have to wonder why some Iraqis feel cheated and changed their attitude towards the US within the last one year.

[Spearin]

You people have to realize that this is was bound to happen and has to be endured.

The Americans are not just fighting the insurgents themselves, but must destroy their motives. What are their motives? Occupation by the US and Coalition. They want them out of their country... can you really blame them for that?

In order to be successful against the Insurgents, the US must gain the support of the Iraqi people by getting the support away from the Insurgents. That's what the whole 'Hearts and Minds' thing is. If you can get the support of the people, you can begin to crush the insurgents.

That is why using excessive force will not work. Sure, it may take out a few dozen insurgents, but also has its consequences. Bomb a house by accident, kill a few civilians and the support for the US decreases and the Insurgents' support increases. You can't win this war like that.

What needs to be done is more precision from the individual soldiers and less reliance on such excessive force. It will take time, but in the long term will achieve victory. Unfortunately, people don't like waiting... including as it seems most people on this Forum along with Pres. Bush.

[nerdman]

I'll say it again, LONG RUN. Yeah I think it was ****ty we didn't plan to resupply, assist, etc. the local hospitals when we arrived. That was defiantly something that could have been planned and paid for. When you lack recourses, in the case man power, sometimes the short run must be sacrificed for the long run... for the greater good.But then you don't have to wonder why some Iraqis feel cheated and changed their attitude towards the US within the last one year.

I thought we were talking about the reasons for war. Not how the Iraqis are feeling. I'm not going to go off topic. One flame war is enough.

This is getting to be like instant messaging.

[khukuri]

spearin

just realise that those who write "b52 them, nuke them and killm all" are just a bunch of counterstrike softair kiddies who wont get **** from youre god post and arguments.

we talking of def and blind people

I dont think anybody here over 18 think like that,

[nerdman]

spearin

just realise that those who write "b52 them, nuke them and killm all" are just a bunch of counterstrike softair kiddies who wont get **** from youre god post and arguments.

we talking of def and blind people

I dont think anybody here over 18 think like that,

Ditto. Or at least they think like them.

[weedman]

Spearin, you get to the heart of it.

[Spearin]

Spearin, you get to the heart of it.

If my government was sending troops there and they asked for volunteers at my regiment, I would volunteer.

I'm not saying to use no force, but the reduced dependency on 2000lb bombs or Apaches and the increased dependency on the soldiers themselves. They will be the ones who can win it.

[chauncy republicans]

Still there and trying to get on with their lives if it were not for the insurgetns keeping them oppressed...
rofl ROFLMAO rofl

[Ratamacue]

Spearin, you get to the heart of it.

If my government was sending troops there and they asked for volunteers at my regiment, I would volunteer.

I'm not saying to use no force, but the reduced dependency on 2000lb bombs or Apaches and the increased dependency on the soldiers themselves. They will be the ones who can win it.

The Marines for the most part have refused to use any air support in Fallujah except in extreme circumstances (as in the rescue of those 20 Marines who were ambushed and surrounded in a building in the city). The majority of civilians killed have most likely been from the militiamen. I'm sure the Marines have killed some, but who do you think is going to have stronger accuracy and fire discipline? The Marines or these militiamen?


But it is a interesting observation, that the Oil-relevant buildings were secured first, compared to other vital-important parts for the Iraqis.

First of all, the majority of oil production facilities are in the south near the Gulf, from which the invasion was launched. Second, I don't think you realize the absolute environmental disaster that would occur had Saddam had the opportunity to burn most of his oil wells. Why do you think the US waited to the last minute to begin the air campaign? The launch of an air campaign meant that the ground invasion would be coming afterwards. If you launch them nearly simeltaneously, Saddam would not have the opportunity to burn his oil wells before they were secured by US troops.

[chauncy republicans]

Hospitals not being secured does not lend itself to answer “what the war was about.” Mistakes were made, no one denies that.
But it is a interesting observation, that the Oil-relevant buildings were secured first, compared to other vital-important parts for the Iraqis.
People should read NSC-58 before they go on dismissing that the war was faught for oil. :cantbeli:

[Spearin]

The Marines for the most part have refused to use any air support in Fallujah except in extreme circumstances (as in the rescue of those 20 Marines who were ambushed and surrounded in a building in the city). The majority of civilians killed have most likely been from the militiamen. I'm sure the Marines have killed some, but who do you think is going to have stronger accuracy and fire discipline? The Marines or these militiamen?

No doubt. Sometimes though, these civilians won't know the source of the rounds and guess who they would blame...

[chauncy republicans]

The Marines for the most part have refused to use any air support in Fallujah except in extreme circumstances (as in the rescue of those 20 Marines who were ambushed and surrounded in a building in the city).
Good old highspeed marines know how it works! ;) ...if only the army would catch on...

[Ratamacue]

The Marines for the most part have refused to use any air support in Fallujah except in extreme circumstances (as in the rescue of those 20 Marines who were ambushed and surrounded in a building in the city). The majority of civilians killed have most likely been from the militiamen. I'm sure the Marines have killed some, but who do you think is going to have stronger accuracy and fire discipline? The Marines or these militiamen?

No doubt. Sometimes though, these civilians won't know the source of the rounds and guess who they would blame...

Oh I know that. But the fact is, people here will post pictures of dead civilians and say "look at what your trigger-happy American cowboy-soldiers have done! WAR CRIMES!!!!"

[Hellman109]

OK Guys looks liek we got into a bit of a flame war here.....

Anyhow

OK, The Oil infrastructure *HAD* to be defended, as that is most of iraq's GDP, and was essential in the rebuilding of the country, if there oil industry was destroyed, they would be about 7.5billion $USD less for the warfund (minus the costs of running the plants, as that is gross not net).

Wether the eventual money made from them (all thrown back into the country where it should be) goes to the US or Iraq, and who and at what cost it is sold at will show where the intentions lied. If they sell it to the US at below market prices, bit sus there, if they sell it at market price, who cares, a buyer is a buyer.

a B-52 over Fallujah is about the stupedist idea ever. That's like droping a 2000lps bomb on Ney York cause there's a bad snatcher there escentially, total overkill. The US and allied Troops in and around Fallujah are doing the best thing they can, minimal destruction (a shooting hole though a wall and a foot wide gap in the roofs for bridges from one to another is very minimal), isolating the city but not starving it out, is what is required and is the best idea, and is what is being done.

I just hope the fighters there are the ones insinuating other fighters, as Im sure the Iraqi population could be swayed either way with some decent convincing, so if they kill the insurgents convincers, that's a huge step in winning oiver the Iraqi's.

I hope the troops set to ocupy civilian areas elsewhere are infact well trained peace keepers (the US dont have the best reputation for there peacekeepers, as they dont get much training in it, and infact they were going to shut down there main peace keeping training facility just before 9/11, then that hit, they waited and saw what was going on, and it isnt officially off the books, but it certainly is still running), as poor peace keepers is the best way to annoy a local population.

[TALOS]

without any occupying troops you think that would work :roll:I didn't say this...so do not try to cheat :lol:

I want to aks you a simple question: Where are the Iraqis, who gave the Troops the flowers after the liberation nowadays, and why?

A great number of these "Insurgents" would just not exist, if Iraq would be sovereign and free country without any occupying troops, who are insulting the citizens by their matrial behaviour.
ummm ... you did say it.

[weedman]

without any occupying troops you think that would work :roll:I didn't say this...so do not try to cheat :lol:

I want to aks you a simple question: Where are the Iraqis, who gave the Troops the flowers after the liberation nowadays, and why?

A great number of these "Insurgents" would just not exist, if Iraq would be sovereign and free country without any occupying troops, who are insulting the citizens by their matrial behaviour.
ummm ... you did say it.Not able to read exactly?

[Sabre]

Should have encircled the city, preventing anyone from entering and searching anyone who left. It would be fairly easy to sit there and kill/capture any insurgents attempting a breakout across open ground.

What you then do is cut off the water and electricity and say that you won't reconnect it until they give up. You stop all aid from entering the city and announce that anyone who wishes to leave (ie civvies) may, providing they are unarmed and searched. There are not many civvies who would stick around if they had no water.

The clever thing to do is then to blame the insurgents for this, "you would have food/water/electricity if only the insurgents hadn't taken up arms in your city" "They are preventing us from helping you" etc, etc. That way, the local population swing further to your side and may actually persuade some of their brothers/fathers etc to lay down their arms.

Of course, this would only work if the US had acted to secure and repair civilian facilities and provide them with running water and electricity in the first place.

This is what the UK did when insurgents occupied buildings in the south. We let them stay there until they realised their situation was untenable and the had no clear plan for what to do if we didn't fight them. Then they pissed off and we took the buildings and weapons off them.

[Hellman109]

As I said in my other post, leaving your home city and house and belongings isnt a real solution.

The MINORITY in the city are the fighters, so anything like that wont work.

What's stopping the fighters saying "look they cut us off from water, power etc! kill them"... thought so ;)

[TALOS]

without any occupying troops you think that would work :roll:I didn't say this...so do not try to cheat :lol:

I want to aks you a simple question: Where are the Iraqis, who gave the Troops the flowers after the liberation nowadays, and why?

A great number of these "Insurgents" would just not exist, if Iraq would be sovereign and free country without any occupying troops, who are insulting the citizens by their matrial behaviour.
ummm ... you did say it.Not able to read exactly?

[cold0]

The concetration of so many "insurgent fighters" in the same place it's really a good thing but the Marines must finish the job; the more they kill today at Falluja the less the coalition force would fight in Sunni triangle in the next weeks.

Just remember that the success of the Iraq war and the war on terror are going to be measured over the next few decades, not weeks. A small point, perhaps.... but it means the US needs to deal with the possible trade-offs between short-term and long-term success. Using a B52 on Falluja would represent a short-term success and a long-term disaster in my opinion. Save a few marine's lives now, and have US troops dying for the next several years.... for me, its not a good trade-off.

Trident I'm completely contrary to a "carpet-bombing" solution. The better thing thing is that Marines retake tha action and try to eliminate the major number of insurgents possible, limiting the collateral damage. It' s a bloody, damn, affair but this is even a possibility to inflict a seriuos blow to the Sunni insurgents; it remind my the Tet Offensive when the VC was virtually wiped out and this time there is nothing like NV Army to continue the war...

Just my 2 $.

Regards,