Firefight in Fallujah - US soldiers run for their lives -Fallujah Rejoices (MERGED)

Blood Thirsty? Funny thing you should bring that up....

Seems to me that one of the things that is working against the insurgents in Najaf and Fallujah is the aggressiveness of the insurgents. The Marines moved in 3 weeks ago into Fallujah, and night after night they are attacked. Now it is much easier to defend than attack, and so long as the insurgents keep flinging themselves at the Marines, then why bother to advance? That sector is largely cleared of civilians, and it is essentially a free fire zone. Every time the Marines advance a little the insurgents swarm in, only to get eaten up by gunships. Once the insurgents are weakened enough, expect a really large feint by the Marines. Lots of noise and smoke, while the real force circles in from a flank or the rear.

The same is true only more so in Najaf. By the coalition troops remaining stationary, the insurgents have to come out of the city and cross large flat expanses to get to the US troops. The Shia were always the conscripts in Saddam's armies, he did not trust them to be the officers. So thier military skills are much less polished than the Sunni's in Fallujah. But thier Jihadi spirit will demand that they attack. It will not take many nights of failed attacks with lots of casualties to convince the remaining insurgents to remain in the city, and not attack.

Night after night a lot of insurgents get chewed up by US firepower. Their own "blood thirst" is working against them.....

^
OG you keep using the word insurgents. Not withstanding the biased reporting by your media can you please explain how canyou call people resisting your army insurgents. They are trying to liberate their country. Were the french, Dutch and all otehrs who resisted the Germans during WW insurgents or freedom fighters. Were the Afghanis who resisted the Russians in the 80's freedom fighters or insurgents. Read your own media and government statements relating to say Afghanistan during the Russian occupation before replying?

I agree they are not insurgents. These are terrorists plain and simple. Semper Fi ! :k:

So the American government and media called the Afghanis terrorists for resisiting the Russians? That good to know.

mawarid,

If you are a student of history, particularly Afghanistan, you will understand that after the Soviets left, heavily armed warlords battled for nearly a decade in a brutal civil war. To leave the heavily armed, and highly experience former military of Fallujah in fighting condition would only invite another brutal war after the US leaves, especially until the National Iraqi forces grow some brass ones.....

the difference bewteen the germans and the Soviets, is that we don't want to stay and occupy the country, we want to set up a better government than Saddam, and leave the country in a condition where it has a chnce of survival. Huge difference. If we wanted to "occupy the country, there would be a million troops there...

A better government??? It would be far better if Americans had not toppled democratic governments and imposed dictators in these countries.

OG, the fact still remains that you are as much an invader and occupier of Iraq as the Germans and Russians were. My question is simple, If the Europeans and Afghanis were freedom fighters and had the right to remove the occupiers from their country why should you not grant the same right ot Iraqis. As for all this democracy and getting rid of saddam go and listen to the speeches of your leader prior to the war. No one mentioned liberating the Iraqi people, it was all about WMD's. However, that is a different argument altogether. I simply want to say that just like the Afghanis and the Europeans before them the Iraqis have every right to resist and kill the occupiers.

Tell me one thing, if someone was to occupy America, would you fight to liberate your country? Would you then consider yourself insurgent and terrorist or a freedom fighter and liberator.

^you kidding, he’d be hiding in the sh*tter. :hehe:

Obviously my response is going to be different if the US had been ruled by Saddam for 35 years. Nobody likes their country invaded, but Germany and Japan were not permanently annexed, and they are far better off today than after WWII.....

[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Ohioguy: *
Nobody likes their country invaded,

[/QUOTE]

That is exactly my point. Calling people who are resisting your occupation as insurgents and terrorists is simply wrong. They want you off their land and that is quite understandable. They did not invite you to come and liberate them, therefore they have every right to resist and fight the occupation. Messrs Bush, Rumsfeld, Cheney and the rest of the gang have got you in a fine mess and the poor soldiers are paying with their lives for the misadventure of few idiots.

You have the right to resist, fight, die, and make a mess of your town. You may resist, but is that smart? There is a political process underway. The resistance is the only reason that elections have not already been planned. Remeber elections? Not the ones where you have to vote for Saddam or have your family killed.

Resisting because it is macho is not as smart as fighting a political fight. I am actually calling those in Fallujah insurgents, because a fight with soldiers is better than bombs blowing up police, or school children.

What's more, the US is pouring money into Iraq for projects that are badly needed by the people of Iraq. Is your resistance wise if it harms you countrymen more than it harms the occupier?

"Resisting the Occupation" may sound like the right of everyone, but that does not make it wise. Everyone is so impatient, expecting instant solutions.

Freedom and liberation from occupiers first, the rest follows later. This is what was practised by the Europeans and the Afghanis. Maybe the Iraqis don't want the type of elections and democracy which you are preaching. Why should the Iraqis accept a hand picked and puppet interim govt. Elections can be manipulated and what guarantee is there that the american administration will not manipulate the elections. Tell me will the American govt. let Sadr take power if the people of Iraq elected him in a free and fair elections. I don't think so.

What Saddam did was evil, what you are doing is equally unacceptable. Two wrongs dont make a right.

What is going on in Iraq is a popular uprising, your country has mishandled the situation and is paying a heavy price.

OK, fine.

First, let me go back to the beginning of the war. About a week in, every talking head on TV was predicting huge American losses, including former generals, yet a week later tanks are roaming around downtown Baghdad.

If this was a complete uprising, we would see Sadr city on fire, massive protests in every city in the country, and US troops overwhelmed. As it is, in Fallujah the Marines are playing rope-a-dope, and playing a game of attrition with the insurgents. A week from now there will be a couple of hundred less insurgents, they will be fatigued, sleep deprived, out of ammo, and leaderless. Believe it or not, time is on our side, short of the every-convulsing press reports. In Najaf, a few more frontal assaults on US positions outside of town and Sadr's army will lose it's will.

The success of the invasion of Iraq can only be measured in years and decades. Be calm, be patient. Understand that the world has adopted a success-in-a-nanosecond mentality, and that is patently unrealistic.

Bush warns Falluja rebels](Yahoo is part of the Yahoo family of brands.)

FALLUJA, Iraq (Reuters) - U.S. Marines have launched new air and ground attacks in Falluja and President George W. Bush says his troops will do whatever it takes to eliminate guerrilla activity in the Iraqi city.

“Our military commanders will take whatever actions necessary to secure Falluja,” Bush said on Wednesday, as helicopter gunships and jet aircraft pounded several districts across the Sunni bastion west of Baghdad.

The previous 24 hours saw the most devastating display of U.S. warplane firepower since American forces encircled Falluja three weeks ago in response to the killing of four American contractors and the mutilation of their bodies in the city.

Bush, seeking re-election in November with Iraq a burning campaign issue, said there were “pockets of resistance” in the city but “most of Falluja is returning to normal”.

Black smoke rose above the palm-dotted Golan district and heavy firing echoed elsewhere but U.S. commanders said they were holding back from an all-out assault on the city of 300,000 in hopes that guerrillas might yet agree to turn in heavy weapons.

ANNAN URGES U.S. RESTRAINT

U.N. Secretary General Kofi Annan, whose organisation is helping form an Iraqi government to replace the U.S.-led occupation administration on June 30, urged U.S. restraint.

“Violent military action by an occupying power against inhabitants of an occupied country will only make matters worse,” Annan said.

With Falluja doctors saying some 600 people have been killed in the siege, U.S. forces are wary that further bloodshed in the city – about 50 km (30 miles) from Baghdad – could inflame public opinion across Iraq and the Arab world.

U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell said U.S. commanders were talking to tribal sheikhs to try to get them to influence the guerrillas, but had to defend themselves. “Falluja will be resolved one way or the other in the near future,” he said.

There were no reports of major civilian casualties in Falluja in the latest fighting, but the severity of the bombardment dismayed some residents.

**“This attack shows the frustration in the ranks of American soldiers in Iraq and the American political defeat,” said Ali Abdullah. “We have uncovered the treachery and barbarity of the U.S. army.”

In Falluja a year ago, U.S. soldiers killed and wounded dozens of demonstrators, angering Sunnis in a city that has become a byword for resistance to the U.S.-led occupation.**

SADDAM SPENDS BIRTHDAY IN PRISON

A year after the fall of Saddam Hussein, who spent his 67th birthday in the custody of U.S. forces on Wednesday, American troops are trying to quell twin threats to the new order in Iraq – from the Falluja guerrillas and Shi’ite rebels in the south.

More than 115 U.S. soldiers have been killed in combat this month – higher than the number killed in the three weeks it took to topple Saddam. Since U.S.-led forces invaded Iraq in March last year, at least 520 U.S. soldiers have died in action.

Three soldiers in U.S.-led coalition forces, including two Ukrainians, died on Wednesday. Five policemen were killed in a gunbattle in the northern city of Mosul and three Iraqis were killed by a car bomb that missed a U.S. convoy near Falluja.

The U.S. approach in both Falluja and Najaf now seems to be to try and tighten the encirclement of guerrillas and pummel their positions with heavy weaponry when they can without killing civilians or hitting sensitive places like mosques.

Twice in as many days, commanders have deployed the AC-130 gunship, first used in Vietnam, to blitz ground positions with cannon and machinegun fire. One attack killed nearly 60 Shi’ite fighters near Najaf on Monday, U.S. officials said. A similar raid struck Falluja on Tuesday.

SADR HOLED UP IN NAJAF

U.S. forces could face an even more delicate dilemma in the southern city of Najaf, where a radical cleric from Iraq’s Shi’ite majority, Moqtada al-Sadr, has taken refuge among the shrines with his several thousand strong Mehdi Army militia.

An aide to Sadr – wanted by an Iraqi judge in connection with the murder of another cleric – was quick to echo local accusations that many civilians died in Monday’s attack near Kufa, the heaviest in a three-week standoff.

Qais al-Khazaaly said a U.S. incursion into Najaf would “transform the situation into a Shi’ite Islamic confrontation with the Americans”. Sadr has vowed to unleash suicide bombers.

But other Shi’ite factions in the holy city offered comfort to U.S. commanders who believe they can isolate Sadr. Many local people are impatient with the violence because it has driven away the pilgrims who drive the city’s economy.

“We are tired of what is happening here. Look around you. Most of the shops are closed,” said Ali Khalid al-Unezi. “Who will pay the bills? Is it Moqtada?.. We will all be happy the day they are driven out of the city.”

Colonel Brad May, commander of the 2nd Armored Cavalry Regiment outside Najaf, said: “Our goal is to continue to pressure Sadr to understand that we are not going away.”

what point is democracy when there will be 14 "enduring" bases around the conutry? even if there were no resistance, people will be ruled by a puppet regime. i mean yes there might be financial benefits for iraqis, but you guys do not understand that living under false soverignty is not accepted by people even if it means financial benefits. if iraqis had voted a descent party in power that wanted to make iraqi oil nationalised, would US forces in those 14 enduring bases stand and watch without doing anything? what if the iraqis wanted to see those bases closed, will US have left? so the point is that what is the cost of stability? do they want stability but with US forces around major cities just in case the people vote in a govt that is not desired by the americans, they can just walk in and "change" the outcome of the elction. that is what we understand the future to be if there were no resistance, that is why people agree with resistance in iraq, otherwise most people here too would like to see stability and financial growth of the iraqi people. the day americans get this idea, they will say ok let us leave, but so far i do not see a chance of that.

More than 115 U.S. soldiers have been killed in combat this month -- higher than the number killed in the three weeks it took to topple Saddam.

Yes, and on May 1 2003 Bush in effect declared victory, and mission accopmplished in Iraq. Since then some 657 occupation soldiers have been killed, and tens of thousands injured - trashing every prediction made by the pro-war side, who now are firmly on the backfoot.

'Because we're American we can do it, don't worry, we'll besiege them after invading them under false pretences. We are American and therefore are more valubale than these so and so's'. We're the Marines. They can't compare to our superior firepower and indiscriminate killings of civilians who we conveniently label as insurgents blah blah blah.

Why wasn't the U.S. calm and patient prior to the UN Resolutions?

Political process is underway? The one that the unvaders installed. Yes, very unbiased!

The War was based on lies. People in the country are only trying to defend their homeland.

[QUOTE]
Originally posted by sholay: *
*
'Because we're American we can do it, don't worry, we'll besiege them after invading them under false pretences. We are American and therefore are more valubale than these so and so's'. We're the Marines. They can't compare to our superior firepower and indiscriminate killings of civilians who we conveniently label as insurgents blah blah blah.**
[/QUOTE]

Very true. No group has killed more Iraqi civilians in the last year, than the US military. In Falluja alone they have killed 600-700 civilians - something that will never be allowed to be forgotten or downplayed.

Headline at Drudge:

PENTAGON CONFIDENTIAL REPORT: SADDAM'S AGENTS PLANNED FOR INSURGENCY

My first thought: Would've been nice if we had too.

But really this is just dumb BS. Polls are starting to show displeasure with Dear Leader because of Falluja specifically. Dear Leader tell us this is all Baathists fault. So now proof is given, nevermind that it's completely disassociated.

Ah, someone slapped him and reminded him to include the all-important caveat:
Classified Pentagon intelligence findings: Many bombings against Americans in Iraq, and the more sophisticated of the guerrilla attacks in Fallujah, are organized, often carried out by members of Saddam Hussein's secret service, who planned for insurgency even before fall of Baghdad, the NEW YORK TIMES is planning to report in an exclusive splash Thursday.... Developing...
Yep, BS.

Didja hear that that one of the 9/11 hijackers was married to Saddam's nephew?