Don't say stuff like that. You know as well as I do that there's no way every single citizen of Fallujah has left. You sound like an ass.
The invasion of Fallujah will see civilians die. And if the engagement is as big as some predict, it will see many people die - and that will no doubt drive insurgent recruitment up. The Iraqi people see America as an occupier, and an attack on a city like this will almost certainly solidify that image.
If the US focused its efforts on actually stabilizing Iraq like they said they would, they could undermine the insurgent's public support.
First, for someone who claims to be smarter than everyone around you, you come across as being a very insensitive, immature jerk. If you want to ram your political veiws down everyone's throat, you should do it with respect.
Second, you say that they should stabilize Iraq. Well let me say that is the absolute truth. The US should.
But aren't we forgetting something, children?
How can you stabilize a country with extremists rebels undermining everything you do?
Simple answer: You can't.
For example, the US succeeded in restarting the oil pipeline flow to try and give the Iraqi economy some much needed revenue. But what happened? The insurgents blew it up, again and again.
In order to 'stabilize Iraq' you have to get rid of the ones who undermine you at every turn. People are afraid to work for the Americans, for fear of reprisal. If the US can show the Iraqi people that they can deal with the militants effectively and efficiently with a major victory at Fallujah, the people will see that the Americans can protect them, and then that fear will be washed away.
You're an idiot. You want respect, then show some. You call me insensitive for giving a damn about the innocents that are dying because of America's actions. Something you clearly know nothing and care nothing about. Likewise because I happen to care about Iraq as a country, not just US interests there. And I happen to care that people are dying. Who, exactly, is insensitive?
America had one interest in trying to rebuild the oil pipeline, and it wasn't in the interest of the Iraqi people. That's why they guarded the oil ministry but nothing else.
Stabilizing Iraq does not mean the US has to assume "Kill! Kill! Kill!". If they stopped acting as occupiers they could stabilizie the country. Certainly, a number of insurgents will remain hostile towards the United States, but an attack on Fallujah will increase militant numbers, not reduce it. Not to mention that scattering them means attacks in dozens of places, since they are no longer besieged in the one city.
Simply put, yes Iraq needs stabilization. No, this is not going to do it.
Actually, the news reports that hardly any civilians died. And if you noticed, the HOSPITAL is one of the first places secured by the Americans. I wonder why?
I was using it as an example, Drayson. You know what I meant. Don't be stupid.
They did. Do you even read the news? Like, at all? The Americans are not in command of the country. The Iraqi government is. They aren't occupiers. And you CAN'T start reconstruction until you eliminate the threats to it.
That makes no sense. If you kill a militant, you subtract from the total. Ever heard of math?
If you show them that they will get their asses kicked if they take up arms, then they won't take up arms. Ever heard of logic?
The United States "secured" hospitals to prevent militants from recieving care. That might sound like a decent plan - except that denying medical care to anyone is an outright violation of the Geneva Conventions ("Civilian hospitals organized to give care to the wounded and sick, the infirm and maternity cases, may in no circumstances be the object of attack, but shall at all times be respected and protected by the Parties to the conflict."). Or do they not apply to America anymore? It's been reported the US is targeting ambulances, and at least one doctor has been killed. They are, quite simply, denying health care to the citizens of Fallujah.
Unless you expect the sick and/or injured residents to walk to the hospital, dodging American patrols that are (understandably, given their enviorment) trigger-happy, under a curfew?
If you're going to argue that the US is seizing hospitals, at least try and grapple with an understanding as to why. It certainly isn't to help the civilians.
Umm, no shit? So basically you're allowed to make use of examples, and no one else is? That's hardly the only example of America acting in its own interests in Iraq. You do, however, fail to offer any kind of real argument, which leads me to believe you already know full well that anything the US does is in its own interest.
Bull. Fucking. Shit. Do you believe for a minute that the interim government would be able to stand up at all without US muscle behind it? They're 100% reliant on the States to keep them in power, and you quite simply don't bite the hand that feeds you. What America says goes in Iraq. It's called a Puppet leader, and the USA has become quite good at installing them.
Let me give you a real life example. September 11, 2001. In the days following, the United States Military sees a substantial increase in the number of people signing up to fight.
A number of the people of Iraq see the US invasion in the exact same light you see September 11. A terrorist action by an out of control madman. Only for them, it's worse. Because it is not a single day, but a way of life. There's absolutely no denying that the assault of Fallujah will result in civilian death, damages to civilian infastructure, and the general suffering of the civilian population.
The same way Americans responded to 9/11, Iraqis will respond to Fallujah. The majority of militants in the city have fled, and so only a handful will end up being neutralized by the invasion. The number of new recruits will in all liklihood be substantially higher.
This is called a proportional increase. It's not complicated, but you don't learn about it until higher level math. Don't worry, I didn't expect you to be there yet.
This doesn't even take into account the international militants who will come to Iraq specifically to fight. And because the USA decided not to follow their own advice and deploy the required numbers of troops, Iraq's borders are not sealed and terrorists can get into the country. And they have been.
That's not logic. If war were logical, it wouldn't exist. It is in no way "logical" to engage in an action that you know will harm your country, other countires, and the world. Ever heard of instict? The US is occupying Iraq.
Think about this. If another country, let's say Soviet Russia, had invaded America in 1980, you would have been pissed. Let's assume the US military was not a significant factor, and Russia had quickly taken control of the country. Let's further say that your mother, father, uncle, aunt, brother, sister, son, daughter, and best friend were killed by the invading army. You might have taken one of your twelve guns and shot up some Russians. It's by no means logical. You don't have much of a chance of winning. But it's instinctual. You percieve the Russians as invaders, occupiers, evil immoral bastards. So you do what you can to strike back, to hurt them like they hurt you.
In response, Russia launches an attack on Washington, D.C., and destroys the White House. The Pentagon. And kills 20 000 of your fellow citizens while they do it.
You cease to think logically at that point. It becomes a matter of hitting the enemy back and causing them as much pain as you can before they get you. And get you they will.
Probably.
Your problem is that you see the situation in Iraq through your own perceptions. Not only are you not there, but living comfortably in the US of A watching beamed images of flag-waving soldiers walking into Fallujah, but you are of a completely different heritage and religion and come from a totally different set of values.
What seems logical to you may be completely irrational to someone who is not a white, blue collar Christian living in the USA. Not everyone thinks like you, nor is everyone as priveleged as you. You have to get out of that mindset if you want to talk at all about how it is in other countries.
Hardly, nor did I ever claim to. Trite comments like that, though, only serve to undermine your position. Chosing the best of the worst should never be an option simply because there's nothing else. It's like choosing between stabbing yourself and shooting yourself. Neither offers a posotive outcome, one is just faster and potentially less painful.
The US needs to respond to militants with something other than hostile action. I've said it before, and I'll probably say it again because you don't seem to get it. Violence begets violence.
Death + More Death does not equal solution. Two wrongs do not make a right. Responding in kind to militants does nothing to calm them. It only increases resentment of the United States, leading to more militants and more death.
You're quite clearly arguing from a position of extreme ignorance. You can't offer any substantiated information, you can't haven't provided much more than your opinion (based on aforementioned ignorance), and you're plethora of mindless jibes leave me to wonder if this you're just looking for an oppertunity to yell "shutupshutupshutup" at someone who doesn't conform to FOX News' version of events.
You hardly ventured an opinion. You came down all high and mighty trying to sound like you know what you're talking about when you clearly do not. The very definition of an argument is a disagreement - so claiming that an argument is useless because I disagree with you is ridiculous. However, you're quite right - because me trying to argue with someone about something they don't know the first thing about is impossible.
Somewhat entertaining, certainly, but it serves no useful purpose.
Next time you want to pretend your smarter than everyone else, take a minute and ask yourself "do I know what the fuck I'm saying?"..
