So I was watching television...

Just because you're not a warwanking cretin in every thread doesn't mean you aren't one in this thread.

The actions of the US military in Fallujah ought to be seen as a national disgrace, not an excuse to come out with deluded hyperbole about courageous troops bravely destroying an impoverished city with their trillion dollar war machine.

God bless the USA indeed. Criminal, remorseless scum.

You sir, are disconnected from reality.

Many of the insurgents in Fallujah were brought in from other countries, to die taking out as many troops as possible. Do you understand what I'm telling you? They came to die. Families at home? What the hell are you talking about? These insurgents were more concerned with killing every last western human being on the face of the planet. It could have been a U.S. soldier, British soldier, Canadian soldier, Australian soldier, it didn't matter. They wanted to kill them all.

Our troops warned the people of Fallujah to get out, and did it weeks ahead of time. If I'm in a city and U.S. forces say get out because they're coming in to take down the insurgency, I'm getting the hell out! I'm taking my wife, kids, dog, goat, whatever, and getting out of Dodge, because the U.S. means business. You call them scum, but I guarantee U.S. and allied soldiers have protected your ass enough. You think you could call an insurgent scum without him shooting your face off? Yeah, go ahead, give it a shot.

You're a sanctimonious twat who doesn't understand that what you want and what really happens cannot mesh. They cannot mesh. I am against war, and even I'm realizing that some war is necessary. One extreme is no better than the other, and it would behoove you to realize that.

J.

I also realise some war is necessary. This one was emphatically not, and if you're willing to be a cheerleader for it, then you'd do it for any.

I haven't defended insurgents, and since their wrongs don't make the US actions (and you don't even attempt to defend these) which have been referred to right, the bulk of your post is irrelevant.

Would I? You know this for certain?
Yeah, you don't know anything.

Forget it, you're not worth it.
Just go on living in your insular little world where everyone else is always wrong.

J.

I won't "forget it". You're a cheerleader for some very serious war crimes. The Iraq war is about as unnecessary as it gets and if you're willing to swallow the tissue of lies that that's justified on, you'd likely do it for any other without blinking. All it takes is a few shots of your brave troops "kicking ass", which let's face it - isn't hard to find in any war which is so obscenely one-sided.

Yes, the insuregents only use certain designated buildings....
I guess we never got the memo!

What's your excuse for closing down the hospital then? Is the stated reason, to avoid the enemy using the casualties being caused as propaganda, a-okay?
Should be good...

There were also insurgents in that region, you even say so yourself here. They needed to be dealt with. Fallujah was a hotspot, and the military took every precaution it could.


J.

Here's the thing. I don't think we should have went to war with Iraq. I think there were better options. However, we're there, and we're in a quandry, and it needs to be addressed. The fighting that went on in Fallujah was merely an indicator of the problems Iraq was having. As for troops kicking ass, you better believe I support that. I want them to come home safely, and if they have to kill a guy who is willing to die in order to spread his hatred and malevolence, then so be it.


J.

You don't seem to get that that's not what I'm having a go at.

And you seem to be thinking that I'm cheerleading every war. Perhaps there is an error in communication between us?


J.

I don't know. You've already read about the British guy who took out 150 insurgents. I think what the U.S. did would have been echoed in action and in sentiment by our British military allies.


J.

No, I think that you're cheerleading this one, and if the indications of the original post are all it takes for you to do so, you'd cheerlead virtually any.

You're wrong here, and you would be wrong in making that assumption as well.

J.

So in Fallujah, which is what I'm talking about, the U.S. troops were in the wrong because they fired at the guys with the grenade launchers first?


J.

Since you're arguing about who's a propaganda tool, can I ask a question in that context? You reiterated this idea several times in the OP:

So in some ways, if perhaps only gradually, your thoughts were changed by the two programs you saw. Now, can you identify specific data that you didn't know about beforehand but learned from these shows, and that changed your evaluation? If so, is that data reliable?

If you can't put your finger on the new information, could your change of thought have been more dependent on how data was presented, or what data was selected, rather than the information itself?

I'm definitely with you on the preliminaries. However, these guys are stuck in Fallujah, they have to get through it and secure it, and they have to do it quickly. What do you do?


J.

Certainly.

As a quick point, I also read up on the battles after watching the two shows. I didn't just take them at their word.

From these shows? Some data. However, I relied on mostly visual information. In other words, what I saw on the screen.

I would certainly say that some of my thought processes were altered based on the new information given, and by what I saw on the screen. It was enough to get me to delve more into the subject of what happened at Fallujah, and the comparisons of Saddam and the Third Reich.


J.

So IIUC, your (perhaps slight) change of heart is due to learning about the national socialist ideology and structure of the Ba'athist party in general, and Saddam's posse in particular?

Yes. I knew Saddam was a corrupt dictator, but learning about his history and what he did to rise in power was illuminating for me. The man truly was evil.


J.