Volconvo is a debate forum for the discussion of political, religious, and news-based topics.

RightThinker · Apr 25, 2004, 07:32 pm

U.S. Prepares Possible Najaf Raid

I think they should hit Najaf. The ones that want to attack and kill will want to do so whether we attack or not. We need to get rid of this guy soon. What do others think? I have heard people say that we should not go on the offensive in Iraq anymore and we should act more like a peace keeping force. I disagree.

Apr 26, 2004, 10:23 am

Right,

If we get the cleric, we'll hand apropaganda victory to the thugs. Closing down his paper gave him stature as a victim of American oppression. Have the articles that caused the closing been published in English?

Every innocent civilian killed converts another dozen or so people against us. They want us to go all out.

**Pooeypants** · Apr 26, 2004, 10:40 am

Finally ppl come to realise what a good job Saddam Hussein did of keeping these fanatics at bay and stop the clans warring. Not that what he did was right but he served his purpose.

Impenitent · Apr 26, 2004, 11:01 am

Quote:

Originally posted by Pooeypants,
Finally ppl come to realise what a good job Saddam Hussein did of keeping these fanatics at bay and stop the clans warring. Not that what he did was right but he served his purpose.

just like hitler and those damn jewish fanatics eh?

**Pooeypants** · Apr 26, 2004, 11:30 am

Quote:

Originally posted by Impenitent,

just like hitler and those damn jewish fanatics eh?

err, yeah, the Jewish were definitely trying to kill the Germans...are you defending the Nazis now? :rolleyes:

PhanthomOps · Apr 26, 2004, 11:39 am

The best defense is a strong offense. We need completely surround Najaf preventing any entrance or escape, then section it off searching through each section completely. Confiscate any and all weapons, bomb making materials, etc. and destroy them. Take prisoners where possible, however, anyone putting up resistance should be shot!!!!! This goes for all other areas that resist.
This is the only way we will start to eliminate the problem and show that we mean business.
Having been in combat (1 Silver Star, 2 Bronze Stars and 2 Purple Hearts) if I had to die, I would want to do so while on the attack, not sitting in my tent.
All these hit and run tactics employed by the Muslim fanatics will only continue to succeed if we allow it.

Impenitent · Apr 26, 2004, 11:41 am

nice try to bait and switch, but you are the one who thinks "good job Saddam Hussein did of keeping these fanatics at bay" just substitute hitler...

ruiner · Apr 26, 2004, 01:58 pm

The British Commander in Basra made a good point on TV. He said if the Shia leader in Basra no longer accepted his presense, he and his troops might as well pack up and leave.
His reasoning was this:
"A crowd of 150,000 people at the gates of this barracks would be the end of this, as far as I'm concerned, there would be absolutely nothing I could do about that"

The same is true throughout the country. The coalition forces are effectively guests of the civilian population there, who are largely represented by islamic leaders.
Al Sadr has strong respect from a large part of the shi'ite community but his actions are not supported by the majority. Shi'ite leaders do not condone his actions and have not called against the coalition. If they did then coalition forces would be forced to pull out.
The risk is that heavy handed tactics to resolve the situation with al-sadr may raise tensions so high as to force shi'ite leaders to back al-sadr.
I doubt this will happen, but if the coalition does something stupid like raising the city (exagerated example), then who knows.

Apr 26, 2004, 03:50 pm

Absolutely the US should cordon off areas know to harbour, house, support these groups. Allow any non-combatants to un-ass the AO, then move in and eliminate the threat. One less hate spewing Mullah. And then it's Miller Time.

The Black Flag · Apr 26, 2004, 05:31 pm

It all seems very oppressive to me. I mean, they're arn't just random groups of terrorists hell bent on destroying any and all liberty. You have to look at, atleast, basic psychology to get a good grip on what is going on. To "us", it looks like we're trying to spread democracy, to them, it looks as though we're trying to just walk into their country and take over, plant "our" government officials and corporations. Do you honestly think that these "terrorists" are walking around thinking to themselves "Hey, I hate freedom, why not get a lot of other psychos and go take out the U.S.???". Also, if I was one of these terrorist leaders, I'd probably go after some place like Sweden or some shit, rather than the U.S. Basically, what I'm trying to say is this: If I actually supported this government (or any other, for that matter) and a foreign country came in saying they wanted to spread their government to here, of course I'd take up arms against them, wouldn't you? Actually, come to think of it, I don't suppor tthis government, but if another country came here, I'd be the first to roll up a join, grab a gun, and go hunting. That's what it looks like to the Iraqi civillians taking up arms.

The Black Flag · Apr 26, 2004, 05:32 pm

Oops, to clarify: I'm not supporting any actual terrorist organization trying to blow everyone up, I strictly support the citizenry that are taking up arms. It's their homes, their lively hood that their defending, not Saddam or whatever.

Catch 22 · Apr 26, 2004, 06:05 pm

Yeah that'd be a brilliant idea go attack the holiest of holy cities in all of the shiite world. You'll sure be loved by the Iraqis after that one. I mean really people let's utilize some common sense!

Apr 26, 2004, 08:27 pm

The war on Iraq by the U.S. government "was" supposedly a war of liberation. Now, it is a war of "occupation and conquest."

An attack on Mr. Al-Sadr is an attack on the American people. Mr. Al-Sadr is nothing but a red-blooded Iraqi looking out for his own kind and country, just as we are red-blooded Americans looking out for our kind and country.

Why does the U.S. hate Mr. Al-Sadr? Because he sees the phoniness of Bush failed administration, because he does not want to be a slave. The U.S. is attacking him because he refuses to give up his weapons.

The question one should ask is: What would you do if someone came to confiscate YOUR weapons?

Mia · Apr 26, 2004, 08:52 pm

Quote:

Originally posted by Impenitent,

just like hitler and those damn jewish fanatics eh?

This is why Saddam had the amount of support he did. Stability is hard to come by over there. The atrocities committed by a dictator can be a lot less than decades of civil war.

Mia · Apr 26, 2004, 08:57 pm

Quote:

Originally posted by Catch 22,
Yeah that'd be a brilliant idea go attack the holiest of holy cities in all of the shiite world. You'll sure be loved by the Iraqis after that one. I mean really people let's utilize some common sense!

That's why they are concentrating there. They're using it as a sheild.

Quite a tough situation.

castille · Apr 27, 2004, 12:24 pm

Hitler and Saddam are efficient leaders (well effective). They're not good with numbers, but they know how to get their way.

If Saddam had been more realistic (ie. not let his son get a reputation of being a pedofile and rapist/murderer), and toned down the interesting torture chambers, he might have been able to keep Iraq alive without many deaths (maybe 2-3 million deaths a year).

The question is....do you (like poopeypants) support Saddam's stability (but at the expense of a million or two lives) or (like impertnent) support a riskier but potentially beneficial situation?

Actually it reminds me of a quote...."If you want success you take the risk. If you want to be average all your life, you don't risk it."

(Of course....assuming that you care about human lives. If you love death you'll love Saddam).

castille · Apr 27, 2004, 12:26 pm

Quote:

Originally posted by Pooeypants,
Finally ppl come to realise what a good job Saddam Hussein did of keeping these fanatics at bay and stop the clans warring. Not that what he did was right but he served his purpose.

Er....you do realise that the cost for "stability" was millions of lives each year? Not to mention his son raping any woman he wants (I bet you would hate Saddam if your wife/daughter was raped by his son).

Although you have a point in your support of Saddam (that he kept the peace), do you prefer a brutal yet stable dictatorship, or chaotic yet potential democracy? (and unless you have proof please dont give me crap about how the US is going to puppet Iraq - and playing Hearts of Iron is NOT proof).

Catch 22 · Apr 27, 2004, 04:52 pm

Quote:

Originally posted by Mia,+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Mia,)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteBegin-Catch 22,
Yeah that'd be a brilliant idea go attack the holiest of holy cities in all of the shiite world. You'll sure be loved by the Iraqis after that one. I mean really people let's utilize some common sense!

That's why they are concentrating there. They're using it as a sheild.

Quite a tough situation.[/b][/quote]

Yup and they can use the shield as much as they want because if we go in there we're dead. I don't normally like speaking in absolutes but this is just one of those occasions. If the US military goes on the offensive in Najaf we'll see a huge shia uprising and that would be some serious shit.

Mia · Apr 27, 2004, 06:02 pm

I think you're right. And Iran will jump in. I don't know what the heck they should do with this one.

Castille, I didn't/don't support Saddam. I'm saying why he had support when it's unthinkable to us why he would.

Yes, sometimes it is better to have a brutal but stable dictator. Look at Lebanon. 14 years of civil war killed millions more than Saddam did.

NOT defending him. At all. Just a concept. Now they are occupied by Syria, which many don't like, but they are better off than people constantly killing each other in the stredets.

Apr 27, 2004, 06:09 pm

Well it looks like US troops are currently kicking the shit out that terrorist group in Najaf. I caught some footage on the news. I know my attitude is not very popular, and definitely politically incorrect, but I firmly believe the only way to ending terrorism, and realize peace in the middle-east, is by using superior force to eliminate those who would perpetuate violence. That group in Najaf called for a cease fire under the guise of giving up their weapons. It is a long standing tradition in the region for combabants to call for a time out while they rest, rearm, and regroup. We've seen this tactic countless times in the past few decades. Unfortunately for the terrorist, is that they now face a much more disciplined, trained, equiped military that plays by different rules and kicks ass. I have no doubt that the coalition forces and diplomats will calm get rid of the trouble makers and help Iraq build a better country. Then its Iran's turn.

View Poll Results: Should the US go on the offensive in Najaf? (and the greater Iraq in general)
Yes	9	50.00%
No	9	50.00%
Voters: 18. You may not vote

Apr 25, 2004, 07:32 pm	#1 (permalink) (top)
RightThinker Molten Ash Location: St. Thomas U. S. V. I. Posts: 146	U.S. Prepares Possible Najaf Raid I think they should hit Najaf. The ones that want to attack and kill will want to do so whether we attack or not. We need to get rid of this guy soon. What do others think? I have heard people say that we should not go on the offensive in Iraq anymore and we should act more like a peace keeping force. I disagree. "This country was founded and built by people with great dreams and the courage to take great risks." -Ronald Reagan- January 26, 1983

Apr 26, 2004, 10:40 am	#3 (permalink) (top)
Pooeypants Neo Moderator Location: England Posts: 5,602	Finally ppl come to realise what a good job Saddam Hussein did of keeping these fanatics at bay and stop the clans warring. Not that what he did was right but he served his purpose. War is Peace Freedom is Slavery Ignorance is strength Harness the power of Ingsoc, then you can capture someone killed the year before

Apr 26, 2004, 11:39 am	#6 (permalink) (top)
PhanthomOps Hot Lava Location: Glendale, Queens, New York Posts: 970	The best defense is a strong offense. We need completely surround Najaf preventing any entrance or escape, then section it off searching through each section completely. Confiscate any and all weapons, bomb making materials, etc. and destroy them. Take prisoners where possible, however, anyone putting up resistance should be shot!!!!! This goes for all other areas that resist. This is the only way we will start to eliminate the problem and show that we mean business. Having been in combat (1 Silver Star, 2 Bronze Stars and 2 Purple Hearts) if I had to die, I would want to do so while on the attack, not sitting in my tent. All these hit and run tactics employed by the Muslim fanatics will only continue to succeed if we allow it. A Republican - Conservative - PRO-ACTIVE HAWK with compassion For God & Country - To Serve, Defend & Protect Lock & Load - Go In Hot - Praise the Lord & pass the ammunition

Apr 26, 2004, 11:41 am	#7 (permalink) (top)
Impenitent Hot Lava Posts: 1,859	nice try to bait and switch, but you are the one who thinks "good job Saddam Hussein did of keeping these fanatics at bay" just substitute hitler... "I really like this jacket, but the sleeves are much too long..." insanity is doing the same thing over and over again, but expecting different results...

Apr 26, 2004, 10:23 am	#2 (permalink) (top)
StoneWT Guest Posts: n/a	Right, If we get the cleric, we'll hand apropaganda victory to the thugs. Closing down his paper gave him stature as a victim of American oppression. Have the articles that caused the closing been published in English? Every innocent civilian killed converts another dozen or so people against us. They want us to go all out.

Apr 26, 2004, 01:58 pm	#8 (permalink) (top)
ruiner Igneous Magma Posts: 180	The British Commander in Basra made a good point on TV. He said if the Shia leader in Basra no longer accepted his presense, he and his troops might as well pack up and leave. His reasoning was this: "A crowd of 150,000 people at the gates of this barracks would be the end of this, as far as I'm concerned, there would be absolutely nothing I could do about that" The same is true throughout the country. The coalition forces are effectively guests of the civilian population there, who are largely represented by islamic leaders. Al Sadr has strong respect from a large part of the shi'ite community but his actions are not supported by the majority. Shi'ite leaders do not condone his actions and have not called against the coalition. If they did then coalition forces would be forced to pull out. The risk is that heavy handed tactics to resolve the situation with al-sadr may raise tensions so high as to force shi'ite leaders to back al-sadr. I doubt this will happen, but if the coalition does something stupid like raising the city (exagerated example), then who knows.

Apr 26, 2004, 03:50 pm	#9 (permalink) (top)
dave654 Guest Posts: n/a	Absolutely the US should cordon off areas know to harbour, house, support these groups. Allow any non-combatants to un-ass the AO, then move in and eliminate the threat. One less hate spewing Mullah. And then it's Miller Time.

Apr 26, 2004, 05:31 pm	#10 (permalink) (top)
The Black Flag Molten Ash Location: thomaston, GA Posts: 132	It all seems very oppressive to me. I mean, they're arn't just random groups of terrorists hell bent on destroying any and all liberty. You have to look at, atleast, basic psychology to get a good grip on what is going on. To "us", it looks like we're trying to spread democracy, to them, it looks as though we're trying to just walk into their country and take over, plant "our" government officials and corporations. Do you honestly think that these "terrorists" are walking around thinking to themselves "Hey, I hate freedom, why not get a lot of other psychos and go take out the U.S.???". Also, if I was one of these terrorist leaders, I'd probably go after some place like Sweden or some shit, rather than the U.S. Basically, what I'm trying to say is this: If I actually supported this government (or any other, for that matter) and a foreign country came in saying they wanted to spread their government to here, of course I'd take up arms against them, wouldn't you? Actually, come to think of it, I don't suppor tthis government, but if another country came here, I'd be the first to roll up a join, grab a gun, and go hunting. That's what it looks like to the Iraqi civillians taking up arms. Whenever citizens are seen routinely as enemies of their own government, writers are routinely seen to be the most dangerous enemies. --E.L. Doctorow

Apr 26, 2004, 05:32 pm	#11 (permalink) (top)
The Black Flag Molten Ash Location: thomaston, GA Posts: 132	Oops, to clarify: I'm not supporting any actual terrorist organization trying to blow everyone up, I strictly support the citizenry that are taking up arms. It's their homes, their lively hood that their defending, not Saddam or whatever. Whenever citizens are seen routinely as enemies of their own government, writers are routinely seen to be the most dangerous enemies. --E.L. Doctorow

Apr 26, 2004, 06:05 pm	#12 (permalink) (top)
Catch 22 Igneous Magma Posts: 374	Yeah that'd be a brilliant idea go attack the holiest of holy cities in all of the shiite world. You'll sure be loved by the Iraqis after that one. I mean really people let's utilize some common sense! When machines and computers, profit motives and property rights are considered more important than people, the giant triplets of racism, militarism and economic exploitation are incapable of being conquered Martin Luther King Jr.

Apr 26, 2004, 08:27 pm	#13 (permalink) (top)
NewJerseyAttack Guest Posts: n/a	The war on Iraq by the U.S. government "was" supposedly a war of liberation. Now, it is a war of "occupation and conquest." An attack on Mr. Al-Sadr is an attack on the American people. Mr. Al-Sadr is nothing but a red-blooded Iraqi looking out for his own kind and country, just as we are red-blooded Americans looking out for our kind and country. Why does the U.S. hate Mr. Al-Sadr? Because he sees the phoniness of Bush failed administration, because he does not want to be a slave. The U.S. is attacking him because he refuses to give up his weapons. The question one should ask is: What would you do if someone came to confiscate YOUR weapons?

Apr 27, 2004, 12:24 pm	#16 (permalink) (top)
castille Citizen #21521 Posts: 2,599	Hitler and Saddam are efficient leaders (well effective). They're not good with numbers, but they know how to get their way. If Saddam had been more realistic (ie. not let his son get a reputation of being a pedofile and rapist/murderer), and toned down the interesting torture chambers, he might have been able to keep Iraq alive without many deaths (maybe 2-3 million deaths a year). The question is....do you (like poopeypants) support Saddam's stability (but at the expense of a million or two lives) or (like impertnent) support a riskier but potentially beneficial situation? Actually it reminds me of a quote...."If you want success you take the risk. If you want to be average all your life, you don't risk it." (Of course....assuming that you care about human lives. If you love death you'll love Saddam). Ideological loyalty is the act of giving your soul to a vague concept, to be manipulated by people smarter than you.

Apr 27, 2004, 06:02 pm	#19 (permalink) (top)
Mia Retired Posts: 7,312	I think you're right. And Iran will jump in. I don't know what the heck they should do with this one. Castille, I didn't/don't support Saddam. I'm saying why he had support when it's unthinkable to us why he would. Yes, sometimes it is better to have a brutal but stable dictator. Look at Lebanon. 14 years of civil war killed millions more than Saddam did. NOT defending him. At all. Just a concept. Now they are occupied by Syria, which many don't like, but they are better off than people constantly killing each other in the stredets. "...with like-minded people one cannot discuss. With like-minded people one can only participate in a church service, and you know how I feel about church services." Ayaan Hirsi Ali

Apr 27, 2004, 06:09 pm	#20 (permalink) (top)
dave654 Guest Posts: n/a	Well it looks like US troops are currently kicking the shit out that terrorist group in Najaf. I caught some footage on the news. I know my attitude is not very popular, and definitely politically incorrect, but I firmly believe the only way to ending terrorism, and realize peace in the middle-east, is by using superior force to eliminate those who would perpetuate violence. That group in Najaf called for a cease fire under the guise of giving up their weapons. It is a long standing tradition in the region for combabants to call for a time out while they rest, rearm, and regroup. We've seen this tactic countless times in the past few decades. Unfortunately for the terrorist, is that they now face a much more disciplined, trained, equiped military that plays by different rules and kicks ass. I have no doubt that the coalition forces and diplomats will calm get rid of the trouble makers and help Iraq build a better country. Then its Iran's turn.