kentuck
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sun Apr-11-04 09:53 AM
Original message |
Why is the US agreeing to a "ceasefire" in Fallujah ? |
|
It has been reported that almost every Arab nation has had demonstrations against the US siege of that city. This is not a positive indicator for US success in the latest military maneuver. Al Sadr has managed to unite the Sunni and Shiites over a large portion of Southern Iraq and, at the same time, has managed to divide the US-created Iraqi Governing Council. This is a diplomatic and political defeat for the Americans in Iraq. It will be difficult to spin it any other way, especially since Egypt, Libya, and other Arab nations have come out publically against the US actions in Fallujah...
|
TahitiNut
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sun Apr-11-04 10:13 AM
Response to Original message |
|
The parallels are remarkable.
|
mandyky
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sun Apr-11-04 10:15 AM
Response to Original message |
2. I've been wondering the same thing |
|
If we can beat 'em, why are we calling a ceasefire?
|
eaprez
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sun Apr-11-04 10:20 AM
Response to Reply #2 |
|
this 'mindset' that we should be beating them. Are we gonna mow down all the Iraqi's who want us out of there? Thats ridiculous. We have no business 'deciding' what type of government Iraq should have in place. That is an arrogant position. Just let Halliburtan run Iraq the way corporations run the United States. That would be more reflective of our own government and not that "deomocratic" line they are spinning. Hell we don't have true democracy in our own country.
|
baronessniki
(34 posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sun Apr-11-04 11:14 AM
Response to Reply #2 |
14. So we can claim to allow the Iraqis to be in charge so it won't look like |
|
we capitulated to the 'terrorists.' Quiet as it is kept, the human outcry across the globe about our intended genocidal plans in Fullujah made us step back. It's all under the media radar so Bush and the US can appear to be a tower of strength as we poop in our pants.
|
underpants
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sun Apr-11-04 10:18 AM
Response to Original message |
3. It's called "negotiating with terrorists" |
|
Oh but the "terrorist" attacks was changed to "insurgent's" attacks and changed again to "rebel" attacks.
I would be very surprised if they did it today (Easter) but I think the heavy onslaught will start tomorrow. Just a guess.
|
eaprez
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sun Apr-11-04 10:23 AM
Response to Reply #3 |
|
They are the rightful citizens of the country we invaded....we are the ones terrorizing them. The Iraqi military would not fight against their own citizens there. We seem perplexed by this. I would hope American soldiers would feel the same way towards U.S. Citizens.
|
underpants
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sun Apr-11-04 10:27 AM
Response to Reply #5 |
7. That is the word all the news media was using |
|
Told to use? I don't know except that that is how Rummy and W et al were describing the attacks-it's a justification that Iraq is part of the war on terror.
Of course they fought back. Not only is it their country the top has been lopped off and the cash bag is wide open to get their hands in/improve their position. Sudden complete capitalism especially for the poor and powerless.
|
bvar22
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sun Apr-11-04 10:25 AM
Response to Original message |
6. The facts are still thin.... |
|
...but some of the early indicators are that this may have been a tactical military defeat of US forces.
Evidence: The supply lines to American attacking forces was cut (or at least disrupted). The cease fire (American side only) may have been necessary because the armored support was out of gas.
Some (if not all) of the Iraqi forces refused to fight against the Fallugians. If the Americans were counting on Iraqis to provide flank or supply line support, a cease fire (or tactical retreat) would be necessary to re-evaluate troop placement.
|
mike1963
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sun Apr-11-04 10:28 AM
Response to Reply #6 |
8. That was my thought as well...running low or out of ...gas, water, bullets |
|
toilet paper...whatever...
|
frylock
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sun Apr-11-04 10:37 AM
Response to Reply #8 |
eaprez
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sun Apr-11-04 10:32 AM
Response to Reply #6 |
|
I think "IRAQI's" is more appropriate. Fallugians makes them sound like foreigners in their own land. The Iraqis refused to fight against other Iraqi's -- so the military could not count on their support.
|
gemlake
(535 posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sun Apr-11-04 10:36 AM
Response to Reply #6 |
11. Marines also low on tanks |
|
"Because the Marines sent most of their tanks home, they found themselves badly missing their armor when Fallujah blew up last week (and even had to suffer the indignity of asking the Army to loan a few tanks)." http://msnbc.msn.com/id/4711882/
|
Must_B_Free
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sun Apr-11-04 10:33 AM
Response to Original message |
10. we don't negotiate with terrorists - flip flop |
catmandu57
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sun Apr-11-04 10:38 AM
Response to Original message |
13. A few reasons come to mind |
|
The first being the military misjudged the situation, they believed they could show up in strength and the Iraqis would just lay over. That didn't happen, the resistance put up a bigger fight than they expected. Also, their poisition to start the attack wasn't very good, they had to call in reinforcements, and it's very doubtful that they have enough personnal and equipment to do what they want anyway. Their supply line is vunerable, their allies are dubious, and it could be that someone somewhere has scratched their head and asked what in the fuck are we doing. Kind of like Wiley Coyote poking a stick at the pile of boulders he's standing under. I believe the assult will start about nine eastern time tonight, that should be about four in the morning there.
|
PsN2Wind
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sun Apr-11-04 11:19 AM
Response to Original message |
15. Maybe we are rethinking the number of Marines |
|
we're willing to get wasted to avenge the death of four mercenaries.
|
IkeWarnedUs
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sun Apr-11-04 11:42 AM
Response to Original message |
16. I had a different thought on this |
|
When I saw all the "refugees" leaving Fallujah it occured to me that the US may say everyone still in Fallujah is an "insurgent" and do some shock and awe bombing.
I agree that the US called for the ceasefire because things were going so badly for the US and they needed time to regroup. I see massive bombing in Fallujah as a possible outcome of the regrouping.
I'm not sure if I can explain the rest of my reason for believing this without sounding like I don't respect our troops. I do, I absolutely do. But the strength of our military is the power and number of our weapons. We are a super power because we have bigger, more powerful bombs and more of them than anyone else. When it comes to actual man to man combat, I believe we are at a disadvantage, except that our soldiers may have better weapons there as well.
What kind of training have the troops in Iraq received? Look at all of the National Guard and Reserve troops deployed in Iraq. What kind of training did these lawyers, mechanics, accountants and waitresses get? We know that their equipment and support has been insufficient. The best trained US fighters such as Navy SEALS and Marine Recon force are leaving the US military for companies like Blackwater.
This isn't meant as a critisism of our soldiers but of the system.
That's why watching people flee Fallujah made me think the US is about to go with their strength - bomb the shit out of Fallujah now that the only people left are, by definition, insurgents.
|
DU
AdBot (1000+ posts) |
Sun May 12th 2024, 12:41 PM
Response to Original message |