Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: Ripsnort on November 19, 2004, 08:34:14 AM
-
Mutilated bodies dumped on Fallujah's bombed out streets today painted a harrowing picture of eight months of rebel rule.
As US and Iraqi troops mopped up the last vestiges of resistance in the city after a week of bombardment and fighting, residents who stayed on through last week's offensive were emerging and telling harrowing tales of the brutality they endured.
Flyposters still litter the walls bearing all manner of decrees from insurgent commanders, to be heeded on pain of death. Amid the rubble of the main shopping street, one decree bearing the insurgents' insignia - two Kalashnikovs propped together - and dated November 1 gives vendors three days to remove nine market stalls from outside the city's library or face execution.
The pretext given is that the rebels wanted to convert the building into a headquarters for the "Mujahidin Advisory Council" through which they ran the city.
Another poster in the ruins of the souk bears testament to the strict brand of Sunni Islam imposed by the council, fronted by hardline cleric Abdullah Junabi. The decree warns all women that they must cover up from head to toe outdoors, or face execution by the armed militants who controlled the streets.
Two female bodies found yesterday suggest such threats were far from idle. An Arab woman, in a violet nightdress, lay in a post-mortem embrace with a male corpse in the middle of the street. Both bodies had died from bullets to the head.
Just six metres away on the same street lay the decomposing corpse of a blonde-haired white woman, too disfigured for swift identification but presumed to be the body of one of the many foreign hostages kidnapped by the rebels.
It was initially thought to be either the body of Margaret Hassan, the Dublin-born aid worker with dual British and Iraqi nationality who was kidnapped last month, or a Polish woman kidnapped two weeks ago. A Polish official said today there was no evidence to suggest that the body was that of the kidnapped Pole.
Although the US military says it is now in control of the Sunni Muslim city, US forces were today attacking diehard rebel positions in the south of Fallujah, including an underground bunker complex of steel-reinforced tunnels containing weapons including an anti-aircraft artillery gun.
"What you’re seeing now are some of the hardliners, they seem to be better equipped than some of the earlier ones, we’ve seen flak jackets on some of them," Major General Richard Natonski, the Marine general who commanded the Fallujah offensive, told the BBC.
"I think they’re probably willing to lay down their lives in the fight. But we’re more determined and we’re going to wipe them out," he said.
The Iraqi Red Crescent today abandoned plans to take an aid convoy into the city after being refused entry by US forces who deny that there is any humanitarian emergency. The seven-truck convoy was instead heading to nearby villages, where tens of thousands of refugees from Fallujah are camped out.
Meanwhile International Red Cross spokesman today claimed that in the hours before the attack began, US troops had been preventing Iraqi males of military age from leaving Fallujah. Ahmed Ravi told the ITV News Channel: "There are still civilians inside Fallujah who are in serious need for any kind of help. Also, the water treatment plan, under control of Iraqi and American troops, is not functioning right now."
At least 38 US soldiers, five Iraqi soldiers and 1,200 insurgents are thought to have been killed during the week-long offensive, but civilian casualties are unclear - except for an implausible denial from Iyad Allawi, the acting Iraqi Prime Minister, that there are any.
Continued:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,3-1359782_1,00.html
-
and before the flame fest of how WE caused this by not going in let me remind all that it was the IRAQI GOVT that haulted the first assault on Fallujah NOT US authorities.
-
You mean the Iraqi govt installed by the US?
-
It's an interim gov't until elections can be held, but you already knew that Chortle.
-
Originally posted by Chortle
You mean the Iraqi govt installed by the US?
bad guys lose , Chortle unhappy , Chortle hate USA for kill bad mans.
-
Wasn't it the Sunnis who were terrorised by Sadaam? Wasn't it Sunnis in those mass graves discovered just after the "war".
If so it almost explains why Sadaam had a problem with these people and used his "iron fisted" authority to control them.
-
Originally posted by Curval
Wasn't it the Sunnis who were terrorised by Sadaam? Wasn't it Sunnis in those mass graves discovered just after the "war".
If so it almost explains why Sadaam had a problem with these people and used his "iron fisted" authority to control them.
The opposite. Saddam was Sunni and he did all manner of bad things to the Shia in particular. For example one of young Uday or Qusay's (cant renember which) first real jobs was to deal with shia troublemakers in their usual kind and gentle ways...
-
ahhh...okay.
-
Originally posted by Chortle
You mean the Iraqi govt installed by the US?
Yes, and your point would be...?
We put the government in place, and gave them real (but limited) authority. Is that bad?
-
Originally posted by Elfie
It's an interim gov't until elections can be held, but you already knew that Chortle.
Yes, and just as soon as all of those that oppose the US puppet govt are killed, we will be holding the election. That is why most people are ready to die defending thier countries from US democratic exportation.
-
Originally posted by rshubert
Yes, and your point would be...?
We put the government in place, and gave them real (but limited) authority. Is that bad?
Would you mind if al queada put a govt in place in your community? Would you be an 'insurgent' to try to fight them? or a coward and collaborate with the occuping forces?
-
Originally posted by WhiteHawk
Would you mind if al queada put a govt in place in your community? Would you be an 'insurgent' to try to fight them? or a coward and collaborate with the occuping forces?
whitebird , yo be teh stupid, if al kider wanted to run a kanadate in teh USof A they could as long as they follow teh ruls, thets why we be a democratcy, we even let nader run, so duh.
-
Originally posted by Chortle
You mean the Iraqi govt installed by the US?
Yes the one that has total authority in Iraq right now until elections are held. Yes the one that was put in place BY IRAQIS through representation.
Do you have a point to make or are you going to agree that the current Govt is the one that stoped the assault the last time.
-
The intentions are good but im not sure the iraq people is ready for democracy
they don't know democracy
they only know terror
-
i don't think the americans were ready for democracy 200 years ago, but they worked it out, still working it out.
-
yep must be hard with only 2 choices
right or ultra right
:)
-
I wonder what the favorite cheese of the Iraqi people is? I may be bland, but I lean towards cheddar.
dago
-
prolly goat;)
-
Amazing that the people who were screaming for that Marine's head have nothing to say about this.
Where is their outrage now? By their silence they condone this sort of thing imo.
-
I don't understand why people who don't give a **** about the people of iraq (call em animals) and than want to save them .
-
Originally posted by BUG_EAF322
yep must be hard with only 2 choices
right or ultra right
:)
somehow I dont think that even had we not gone in there and Saddam & his crew somehow lost power you would find too many liberals in Iraq.
They're ALL right or ultra right
Even our far right would probably be ultra left by their standards.
-
Originally posted by Elfie
Amazing that the people who were screaming for that Marine's head have nothing to say about this.
Where is their outrage now? By their silence they condone this sort of thing imo.
:aok
-
Originally posted by WhiteHawk
Yes, and just as soon as all of those that oppose the US puppet govt are killed, we will be holding the election. That is why most people are ready to die defending thier countries from US democratic exportation.
Most people?
Hardly
As of 2002 there were approx 24 million people in Iraq.
there are currently AT MOST a few thousand combating us now. And not all of them are even Iraqi.
Hardly what I would call "most people"
Unless of course we managed to kill well over 23 million people over there.
You claim is beyond absurd
-
Originally posted by BUG_EAF322
I don't understand why people who don't give a **** about the people of iraq (call em animals) and than want to save them .
It's Joe and Jane Average Iraqi that we want to save as you put it. The Iraqis that are referred to as animals by some are those that behead their captives on film, those that fake surrendering etc.
-
Iraq is like Vietnam in many ways. Heres one-
The people just want to survive. The insurgents will torture and kill anyone they find helping the Americans. Makes them scared to give information to anyone.
-
Elfie - Fallujah was controlled by a bunch of nutcases. I don't think anybody ever disputed that. I don't remember seeing any posts saying it was a nice place to holiday. Why does anybody need to state the obvious about the terrorist types? But we hold our own troops in higher regard - they are an extension of us; while we purport to have a superior way of life, we must hold our people up to that level of scrutiny. Otherwise what separates us from the beheading types?
So now that the nutcases in Fallujah are gone, does that mean every crappy town in the world where nutcases reign is to be attacked and taken over?
Nice exit strategy.
-
Originally posted by WhiteHawk
Yes, and just as soon as all of those that oppose the US puppet govt are killed, we will be holding the election. That is why most people are ready to die defending thier countries from US democratic exportation.
I love how he phrases things.
"all those who oppose the US puppet government."
Yes they are partisans fighting against the nazis, for freedom and liberty!!!!! You know we are about to hold elections, they can vote for whover they want... But no, they will just bomb the polling places in January killing scores of innocent citrzens who want a taste of freedom and real elections for the fist time in their lives. And you defend the people who want to bomb them....
"Defending their countries from US deomcratic exportation."
I guess they do that by murdering women who refuse to wear taliban style burqas...
Originally posted by WhiteHawk
Would you mind if al queada put a govt in place in your community? Would you be an 'insurgent' to try to fight them? or a coward and collaborate with the occuping forces?
Gotta love it when a nutjob equates Al Qaeda to the US Army...
Its also intersting to see how he judges those who want a free and democratic Iraq, an Iraq free from Saddams terror, free from taliban style opression, an Iraq free to be a full member of the world, to be cowa0rds...
According to your posts and your clear opposition to anything the US did or now does in Iraq the ideal situation in Iraq, by your own view must follow to be either Saddam's tryanny where people are killed randomly due to political paranoia or fanatical muslim taliban style tyranny of the xtermist insurgents where Iraqis are to be killed for not folliwing strict interpretations of radical muslim law.
In other words, you are a sick twisted f**k with serious mental issues and a fanatical hatred of the Iraqi people...
-
Originally posted by BUG_EAF322
I don't understand why people who don't give a **** about the people of iraq (call em animals) and than want to save them .
they don't care for the folks Bug, never doubt that, its them big oil fields they are interested in, no matter what these clowns think or tell you.
which is worst, Sunni or Chiites
-
Originally posted by SLO
they don't care for the folks Bug, never doubt that, its them big oil fields they are interested in, no matter what these clowns think or tell you.
which is worst, Sunni or Chiites
Hmmmm, Canada is a lot closer, you guys got any oil up there?
-
read up on your OIL reserve and maybe you will start seeing the big picture, never mind what your alphabet soup news station tell you...or your Prez.
-
Originally posted by Gunslinger
Yes the one that has total authority in Iraq right now until elections are held. Yes the one that was put in place BY IRAQIS through representation.
Do you have a point to make or are you going to agree that the current Govt is the one that stoped the assault the last time.
My point is, the current Iraqi govt have no control over US or any coalition troops so your BURNING martyr post was WASTED on me.
-
I remember about 25 years ago when an pansy named Jimmy carter was president of the USA....Iran began..what we now call today, terrorism against the USA , when they kidnapped 52 prisoners from the American Embassy in Tehran....Well, now we've come full circle...Under the Reagan and Bush years, Iran didn't blink an eye and kept themselves out of the limelight due to the consequences they new they would suffer, if they attempted to cause any problems towards this country of its allies. But of course during the Clinton years they were able to go to their buddy North Korea and gain the technology to produce nuclear weapons..the same weapons that they are attempting to produce today....Oh!! and you may ask.... how did North Korea get the technology...I'll give you three choices please feel free to pick any one CLINTON...GORE AND AUNT BEE HER SELF MADELYN NOT SO BRIGHT. Now we're stuck having to clean up another mess...Thank goodness it's george W. Bush at the helm and not....DONG-DO CHO.. himself JOHN KERRY
-
Originally posted by CAVY
] sorry last was meant to be new thread
-
Originally posted by SLO
read up on your OIL reserve and maybe you will start seeing the big picture, never mind what your alphabet soup news station tell you...or your Prez.
Better Idea,
why dont you enlighten us instead.
Last I heard about our oil reserve OPEC was asking US to open it.
Maybe you know something we dont?
-
Originally posted by Chortle
My point is, the current Iraqi govt have no control over US or any coalition troops so your BURNING martyr post was WASTED on me.
That not entirely accurate
We didnt go into Fallujah when we originally wanted to because the Iraqi Gov didnt want us to.
Then we did go in when it said we should.
-
Originally posted by Dowding
So now that the nutcases in Fallujah are gone, does that mean every crappy town in the world where nutcases reign is to be attacked and taken over?
Nice exit strategy.
Hmmm now there is an idea with some merit.
what town was it you said you lived in again?:D
-
Originally posted by Chortle
My point is, the current Iraqi govt have no control over US or any coalition troops so your BURNING martyr post was WASTED on me.
WRONG! We are there right now at THEIR request. We are hitting Fallujah right now at THEIR request. No they have no control over our troops but the interim Iraqi Govt runs Iraq rignt now. NOT coalition forces.
-
Originally posted by SLO
they don't care for the folks Bug, never doubt that, its them big oil fields they are interested in, no matter what these clowns think or tell you.
which is worst, Sunni or Chiites
Silly arguement.
And just what were the interests of those scamming the oil for food program about? I highly doubt they were after a better Masgouf recipe or a better price on Dates (Iraqis second largest export)
Now this is coming from someone (me) who has no problem going to war over oil. None whatsoever.
I doubt if it ever really came down to it many countries would.
Like it or not Oil is what makes the world go round these days and without it everything comes to a screeching halt no matter what country your from.
And I cant think of too many countries whose economies wouldn't collapse if their oil supplies were suddenly cut off.
Oil is easy enough to get without going to war over it to go to war over it. Not to mention cheaper
And if we wanted to take over a country for it oil there are plenty ALOT closer south of us we could do it to with relative ease. And I doubt the world would say or do much about it if we did.
IF anything this war in Iraq oil wise will benefit not just the USA but the rest of the oil consuming world as well.
But this wasn't about oil. This was about a regime that was going to have to be dealt with decisively sooner or later. One that has proven time and again to be a threat if not immediately to us directly certainly to ours and the worlds interests And t a threat that would only grow worse and more dangerous over time.
Sanctions long term werent going to work and as is obvious now they were outright falling apart. It was only a matter of time before they were completely ineffective.
Iran now is on the verge of having Nukes. Would only have been a matter of time before Saddam had them too. Given the histories of these two nations it wouldn't have been a question of if they started lobbing these things back and forth at each other and the rest of the area. But when. And it isn't very hard guess as to which of the two would start lobbing them first
But I truely beleive Bush and Blair also viewed him as the single largest threat.
After 9/11 I cant say I wouldnt either
And Saddam wasnt the type of dictator anyone could afford to guess wrong on.
I am sure had we not gone now. Later we would not only be regretting it but calling Bush and Blair idiots for not doing it.
-
Originally posted by SLO
read up on your OIL reserve and maybe you will start seeing the big picture, never mind what your alphabet soup news station tell you...or your Prez.
How about you take your head out of your own arse and read up about the US's SPR and learn a little bit more about the World Petroleum situation instead of continuing to make an bellybutton out of yourself.
FACTS about the US's Strategic Petroleum Reserve
The Strategic Petroleum Reserve is a U.S. Government complex of four sites created in deep underground salt caverns along the Texas and Louisiana Gulf Coast that hold emergency supplies of crude oil.
Current US SPR Inventory as of Nov. 19, 2004
271.1 bbls Sweet Crude
400.2 bbls sour Crude
671.3 Total SPR
Total storage Capacity
727 Million bbls
The SPR is now at its highest level and continues to grow as additional crude oil is received.
Note:
These figures do not include the Naval Petroleum Reserve nor does it include private domestic reserves which surpass the International Energy Agency's requirement of 90 days of import protection.
(All items were ripped and pasted for the use of the less articulate)
http://www.fe.doe.gov/programs/reserves/index.html
Oh wait, I get it, you are trying to say that Canada produces more oil than the US....
think again
TOP OIL PRODUCERS in millions bpd (as of 2003 totals)
1) Saudi Arabia 9.95
2) United States 8.84
3) Russia 8.44
4) Iran 3.87
5) Mexico 3.79
6) China 3.54
7) Norway 3.27
8) Canada 3.11
9) United Arab Emirates 2.66
10) Venezuela 2.58
11) United Kingdom 2.39
12) Kuwait 2.32
13) Nigeria 2.25
Wait, maybe you are trying to say that Canada is the largest exporter!
WRONG AGAIN
TOP World Exporters in millions of bpd (as of 2003 totals)
1) Saudi Arabia 8.38
2) Russia 5.81
3) Norway 3.02
4) Iran 2.48
5) United Arab Emirates 2.29
6) Venezuela 2.23
7) Kuwait 2.00
8) Nigeria 1.93
9) Mexico 1.74
10) Algeria 1.64
11) Libya 1.25
http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/cabs/topworldtables1_2.html
So, if by your own statement you are trying to imply the US is trying to bolster it's reserves from Iraq, you are in fact wrong. We are fast approaching our maximum storage capacity. So, are you trying to say that we are relying on Canada for our reserves? Are you gonna come into Alasaka and cut our pipe line? Please by all means inform us Slo. Oh wait, maybe you are trying to say that our oil reserves are in Canada? Well, wtf are those 4 facilities in the salt domes in Texas and Louisiana for then?
Please Slo, by all means astonish us some more with your feigned air of superioty... (insert throwing emotiocon here)
-
Slo been pwned!
-
Originally posted by DREDIOCK
Silly arguement.
Oil is easy enough to get without going to war over it to go to war over it. Not to mention cheaper
And if we wanted to take over a country for it oil there are plenty ALOT closer south of us we could do it to with relative ease. And I doubt the world would say or do much about it if we did.
At the moment yes and it's not as silly argument as it appears to be. We consume close to 19 millions barrels per day and produce less than 9 million. The rest is imported.
If these numbers remain stable (production/consumption/oil imports), our domestic reserves will be out in about 6 years, lets say 10 (with probable but not proven extra reserves).
If world consumption remains at current levels, we (world) got enough oil for about 35-40 years only. (Even if we find 100% more oil, it's not enough to bring us into 22nd century)
Iraq has proven reserves of about 115 billion barrels, which makes about 15 years of US consumption.
Since the production is maxed out (only Saudis have capacity of increasing the production for about 1-2 millions barrels per day), with consumption being about equal to production, every little disturbance can be of catastrophic proportion to our (and world's) economy.
With securing the Iraqi oil and expansion of production (has to be at least 5 million barrels per day), US would have gained capability of controling the oil prices (similar to Saudis now) and secured future for decades to come.
As we are already there it would be big mistake not to grab Iraqi oil.
-
Originally posted by 2bighorn
At the moment yes and it's not as silly argument as it appears to be. We consume close to 19 millions barrels per day and produce less than 9 million. The rest is imported.
If these numbers remain stable (production/consumption/oil imports), our domestic reserves will be out in about 6 years, lets say 10 (with probable but not proven extra reserves).
If world consumption remains at current levels, we (world) got enough oil for about 35-40 years only. (Even if we find 100% more oil, it's not enough to bring us into 22nd century)
Iraq has proven reserves of about 115 billion barrels, which makes about 15 years of US consumption.
Since the production is maxed out (only Saudis have capacity of increasing the production for about 1-2 millions barrels per day), with consumption being about equal to production, every little disturbance can be of catastrophic proportion to our (and world's) economy.
With securing the Iraqi oil and expansion of production (has to be at least 5 million barrels per day), US would have gained capability of controling the oil prices (similar to Saudis now) and secured future for decades to come.
As we are already there it would be big mistake not to grab Iraqi oil.
Good points.
And Im not dissagreeing with you
Not meaning to sound sacastic but
I was under the impression that Saudi production was already at Max capacity. Least thats what I think I remember hearing.
Doesnt OPEC and not the saudies alone set oil prices?
And although the material I was able to find is dated by a few years It is/was my understanding that while USA makes up 75% of SA's oil buisness we actually only get a little over 20% of our oil from the mideast
All that aside
But what is the likelyhood we would keep it all for ourselves?
Probably and unfortunately we wont.
What we will do is get a western friendly government in there which in the end is only going to benifit everyone. Including the three stooges.
We probably SHOULD keep it all for ourselves.
but we wont
-
Originally posted by DREDIOCK
we actually only get a little over 20% of our oil from the mideast
I think it's even less than that, more like 15% (of our total consumption), but take 15% away from market, without being able to replace it with other sources and disaster would be here.
Also, 65% of world's proven oil reserves are in middle east (almost half of that in SA) and they will be of enormous importance to us in next decade or two.
OPEC quotas are based on the reserves of each member, therefore the biggest leverage is again at SA. It's true that OPEC controls the prices, but SA controls the OPEC.
Originally posted by DREDIOCK
All that aside
But what is the likelyhood we would keep it all for ourselves?
When I've mentioned "control" I meant more with new contracts rather than with military occupation. All we need is to finish job there and get sort of "preferred customer" status. Something more in direction of guaranteed quantities and prices.
We carry most of the costs, so why not most of the benefits?
-
Originally posted by 2bighorn
When I've mentioned "control" I meant more with new contracts rather than with military occupation. All we need is to finish job there and get sort of "preferred customer" status. Something more in direction of guaranteed quantities and prices.
We carry most of the costs, so why not most of the benefits?
though I still do not beleive that was our ultimate reason for going in
I would tend to agree.
and in the end isnt that what our "allies" are so upset over?
That we are now in that position and they are not?
Im not talking about your average joe blow walking down the street, I mean their governments.
I seem to remember hearing well before anyone decided to go in that Saddam was offering the officials of these countries FREE drilling rights and other lucerative deals.
-
Ripsnort,
Do you buy replacement Ctrl keys every couple of months, or just replace the entire board?
eskimo
-
Originally posted by CAVY
Under the Reagan and Bush years, Iran didn't blink an eye and kept themselves out of the limelight due to the consequences they new they would suffer,
No, they were just content on the ransom Reagan paid
-
Elfie - Fallujah was controlled by a bunch of nutcases. I don't think anybody ever disputed that. I don't remember seeing any posts saying it was a nice place to holiday. Why does anybody need to state the obvious about the terrorist types? But we hold our own troops in higher regard - they are an extension of us; while we purport to have a superior way of life, we must hold our people up to that level of scrutiny. Otherwise what separates us from the beheading types?
I tend to agree with this Dowding. My post was regarding the people who only need the hint of a rumor to start screaming about the US. Then when threads like this come up they are totally silent on the issue, almost as if they condone it.