U2 Feedback

U2 Feedback (https://www.u2interference.com/forums/)
-   Free Your Mind Archive (https://www.u2interference.com/forums/f290/)
-   -   MERGED: The Battle of Fallujah/Thank God We're Not in Fallujah (https://www.u2interference.com/forums/f290/merged-the-battle-of-fallujah-thank-god-were-not-in-fallujah-101689.html)

STING2 11-16-2004 07:17 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Norse
Not as much as you think. In fact the election was considered rigged by many experts. Voting registration was completely off. Most towns did not have a popular vote but one determined by the “local party” (Your local War Lord) and opium money was every where. I don’t think it was as free as everyone seems to be making it out to be.
Has there ever been a more free election in Afghanistans 5,000 plus history than this one, or for that matter even another election?

Any study of Afghanistan's history will show that this event is amazing.

STING2 11-16-2004 07:25 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Norse
Some thing I find hard to believe is that this battle came a week after one of the closest elections in America's History. I hope things will not continue like this, but odds are they will.

Fallujah is not the last stand of terrorism as Bush is making it out to be. After we win Fallujah their will be another central for insurgents and then another. They won’t all lay down their rifles and say "Oh boy I guess this was our last stand. Let's put aside our differences and move on". We are just caught in a spiral of violence that shows no sign of stopping.

What’s worse is that we still have the Afghans to deal with and the shinny city of Jerusalem has caught Mr. Bush's eye.

If the battle had come a week before the election, people would be attacking Bush saying he launched the attack on Fallujah to increased his chances of winning the election. The Presidents poll numbers improved during the last attack on Fallujah in April.

This past election was not one of the closest election in US history as I know off hand ten other elections that were closer. In addition, it was the first time that a President recieved more than 50% of the vote since 1988 when Bush's father first won the White House.

Bush NEVER made Fallujah out to be the last stand for terrorism in Iraq. The US has plans to keep over 140,000 troops in Iraq through 2005 into 2006 as well as sending Billions more dollars in aid money. Fallujah was a city that needed to be cleaned of insurgents. It was the central base for insurgents in Iraq as found by the massive amounts of bomb making materials for IED's, that Marines found in the city. Secret Tunnel complex's with massive stocks of ammo were found as were torture chambers and rooms where terrible attrocities took place.

What the troops have done in Fallujah is AMAZING!

A_Wanderer 11-16-2004 11:04 PM

Sting again I say you are the man, every time that somebody knocks your arguments for not being emotional tug-at-heartstrings sob stories take it as a compliment that you are arguing the point properly.

Norse 11-17-2004 03:31 AM

Quote:

Has there ever been a more free election in Afghanistans 5,000 plus history than this one, or for that matter even another election?
There was acctually one in 1987 but it got overthrown by civil war, but I see your point. What I am saying that even though it was a step towards democracy, it might not have been a huge one considering the numbers. I think it was in the New York Times, that I read that 1/3 of the voters voted twice, tryed to vote twice, or registered twice.

I admit this election was a step forward in Afgan history but lets not make it in to something it was not.

Quote:

If the battle had come a week before the election, people would be attacking Bush saying he launched the attack on Fallujah to increased his chances of winning the election. The Presidents poll numbers improved during the last attack on Fallujah in April.
I dont know where you got that. Gallup had him down in FP and Iraq. Don’t look at whole numbers the week after an election victory.

Quote:

This past election was not one of the closest election in US history as I know off hand ten other elections that were closer. In addition, it was the first time that a President recieved more than 50% of the vote since 1988 when Bush's father first won the White House.
I meant in the context of partisanship general feeling. The Election was quite close however, but I dont know where it places in the top 10. I am pretty sure it is there though.


Quote:

Bush NEVER made Fallujah out to be the last stand for terrorism in Iraq. The US has plans to keep over 140,000 troops in Iraq through 2005 into 2006 as well as sending Billions more dollars in aid money. Fallujah was a city that needed to be cleaned of insurgents. It was the central base for insurgents in Iraq as found by the massive amounts of bomb making materials for IED's, that Marines found in the city. Secret Tunnel complex's with massive stocks of ammo were found as were torture chambers and rooms where terrible attrocities took place.
I have never seen evidence of any of that. First off it is not Bush making Fallujah in to the last stand its the media. I don’t know where you got all of that, you may be right I may be wrong :P

In general Fallujah was a victory but I would say a critical one. There will always be a Fallujah. I think we just need to wait a week before a new one pops up.

carrieluvv 11-17-2004 04:10 AM

"Every act of creation is first of all an act of destruction."
-- Pablo Picasso

like the iraqi civlian said - dont look at the destruction , look to the future..
that is what im going to try to do

its impossible not to look at the destruction - but something good can come of it

Macfistowannabe 11-17-2004 08:51 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by A_Wanderer
Sting again I say you are the man, every time that somebody knocks your arguments for not being emotional tug-at-heartstrings sob stories take it as a compliment that you are arguing the point properly.
I'd be afraid to argue with him. He ends up writing half a novel to defend himself.

verte76 11-17-2004 03:48 PM

Sting is pretty tough in debates, sometimes I end up just deciding we don't agree on Issue X and we never will. :wink:

Macfistowannabe 11-17-2004 05:06 PM

That's about the best way to surrender. He probably never knew you were actually surrendering until now. :hmm:

Norse 11-17-2004 06:32 PM

I hate to deabte, just like alittle friendly banter :P

Macfistowannabe 11-17-2004 09:58 PM

I don't mind a friendly debate. It helps me understand why the opposite side feels the way they do, rather than going on thinking that each other are hypocrites and all that crap. In reality, we follow a different set of principals, and it's for the individual to decide what they believe in.

Scarletwine 11-18-2004 04:06 PM

A tragedy for all :sad:

https://fallujapictures.blogspot.com/

MrsSpringsteen 11-18-2004 04:17 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Scarletwine

https://fallujapictures.blogspot.com/

I just briefly looked at that, as much as I could

There are no words, of course..

A_Wanderer 11-18-2004 05:05 PM

Of course there are words, rotting bodies in the street, kids with their faces torn to shreds and soldiers covered in blood. One shouldn't construct a bloodless view of what goes on there, but I suppose that the only way one could ever defend that action would be to go there themselves. Interesting article by somebody who is there talking about the relative absence of civilians.
Quote:

American forces say they are still fighting small pockets of insurgents in the city of Falluja.

Our correspondent, Paul Wood, is with American marines in the city. He gave the following interview to BBC Radio 4's Today programme:

<...>

Q: But as you travel with the American soldiers, do you come across civilians?

We saw literally a glimpse of civilians.

We were on the roof of a building - this was the first day of the battle in fact on Wednesday - and saw people waving white flags running away. And the marines stood up to say "Keep going, it's dangerous, don't come in this direction" and as soon as they did that, a volley of gunfire came in, because they'd revealed their position. And that was the only view of civilians that we have had.

One female civilian came to be treated at the medical post here and left before I had a chance to speak to her.

But I've questioned ordinary marines, officers and they say quite truthfully, we literally don't see civilians and that is the position of, I think, most of the US forces here - they do not see civilians...
https://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/mid...st/4012677.stm

Macfistowannabe 11-18-2004 10:18 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Scarletwine
A tragedy for all :sad:

https://fallujapictures.blogspot.com/

I apologize, but I didn't click on the link. Reason being, I've heard plenty of bad news about this war. I've seen enough sickening images on the news. I appreciate your willingness to get me on my sensative side, and I've felt that way for a long time. :tsk:

I'm sad to see so many lives taken at such a young age, but in spite of it, we still need to support our troops, regardless of whether or not were for the war. They need to know that we're praying for them, and that we want them to succeed in their mission.

A_Wanderer 11-19-2004 03:14 AM

Don't ever look away, it is not pretty and nor should it sanitised.

Norse 11-19-2004 03:56 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by A_Wanderer
Don't ever look away, it is not pretty and nor should it sanitised.
What are you talking about? :|

MrsSpringsteen 11-19-2004 04:37 AM

I just meant that there are no words to describe my reaction to it. I force myself to look at things like that, but it doesn't make it any less difficult.

I'm just sensitive, and I won't apologize for that.

Scarletwine 11-19-2004 06:28 AM

Mrs. Springsteen,

I agree, I force myself to look at things like that so I don't become desensitized to the news from Iraq.

I'm becoming so upset everytime I hear of a new offensive, for the loss of our soldiers lives and souls and the Iraqis.

anitram 11-19-2004 03:06 PM

It is important to look at the pictures of dead and wounded civilians.

They are the only ones who had no choice in the matter. A soldier chose the military as his career, and an insurgent or terrorist chose violence. A child and his mother had nothing to do with it, no choice was given to them at all, nobody asked them if they wanted to sacrifice their lives, their children's lives, their parents' lives, their friends' lives for this.

A_Wanderer 11-19-2004 04:13 PM

Quote:

What are you talking about?
People have to see the result of war, every time, by looking away and ignoring it such a decision becomes that little bit easier. Also people should be paying closer attention to see the result of carbombs against a crowd of little kids, or the end product of the terrorists actions. Not to create any moral equivalence rather to see all sides of the problem.


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 02:33 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2022, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com