15 Killed, 22 Injured in Iraq Gunbattle

FALLUJAH, Iraq - Insurgents attacked a police station and a government building on Saturday, sparking a gunbattle, killing 15 people and wounding 22 others, police and hospital officials said.

The gunmen, riding in vehicles, opened fire on the buildings with automatic weapons and rocket-propelled grenades, police officer Essam Yaseen said. The wounded included five policemen and three civilians, he said. The two buildings are about a half mile apart.

More...

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20040214/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraq_attack&cid=540&ncid=716

:-(

with each passing day , my anger over this invasion
icreases . Bush owns this mistake , It's his
invasion . I protested, I marched in the streets
and Yelled out that this was a mistake .For
three months in a row we held mass rallies .
The Largest in the History of the world .

I tried so darn hard to keep this mistake
from happening .

:-(

WHY aren't we demanding that our military be brought home immediately???????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????/

There are PLENTY of inflammatory issues with which to unthrone Bush with...........but there are people still being BLOWN UP every day over there!! Is it too hard to consider that those people (ours and theirs) want it ALL TO GO AWAY??? The only place I see thorough, regular updates on our "wars" in the mid east is ON THIS BOARD! There is plenty of time to sort out our domestic issues..........GET OUR PEOPLE OUT OF IRAQ NOW!

STOP THE MADNESS, get the message out!

If we pull out, Iraq will spiral into civil war and ethnic warfare between the Sunnis, Kurds and Shiites -- with Turkey invading Northern Iraq if/when the Kurds get too uppity. We (the world) cannot afford to have Iraq become a Middle East version of the Balkans.

What we need to do is surrender all control of the effort, including appointment of contracts and oil management, to the UN for stewardship, and then participate -- to whatever degree the UN requires -- in stabilization.

santa clause, whatever. We Need to get our masses out of there. Give up all rights to "booty", cut losses, and back off! Just our "physical presence" is extremely inflammatory to those people and will perpetuate the violence. We need to put "different" faces in that arena.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

surrender all control of the effort, including appointment of contracts and oil management
-------

Like that's really going to happen. That's why over 50,000 Iraqi's and 500 Americans have been killed. Over oil contracts and oil management. Over OIL period!

I watched a nature show a long time ago which showed how African tribes captured monkeys. They would place food in an opening that the monkey could fit his hand in to grab the food. Once the monkey had the food in his hand, which was now a fist, he couldn't extract it out of the hole. So he would sit there, scream, and allow himself to get captured. All he had to do to escape was let go of the food. But he wouldn't.

The Neocons are that monkey. All they are focused on is the oil.

I just *wish* some enterprising multimedia expert would put *that* into a commercial.

pull out...a week later it will be out of the news!

You would not feel any responsibility, then, for the ensuing slaughters?

My opinion differs.

This racist notion that we have to intervene in the affairs of others, that only happen to have brown skin, sickens me. Are the inhabitants of other nations unable to straighten out there own affairs. Is not this idea that we MUST stick around and DO SOMETHING more veiled colonialism?

We shouldn't be there.

We couldn't possibly leave too soon. Let other countries determine their own direction. No matter what is said, no matter what, the only real reason the US will stay is to further establish indirect economic colonialism in Iraq, by allowing US and US client state investment entities to expropriate Iraqi businesses.

That is the only reason. Iraq has been around longer than most countries on Earth. They can take care of themselves. They don't need the US.

Fred

Our only correct course of action, as you stated, was to NOT get involved -- to abstain from internal intervention. However, *WE* chose, as a representative democracy, to intervene, and once we rammed our tank barrels into Iraq's belly and broke Saddam's cherished grip on power, our resources spent ... simply pulling out is NOT an option.


> This racist notion that we have to intervene in the
> affairs of others

It's mighty difficult to pitch a complete game throwing from way out in left field. What the FXXX does this have to do with race? It's about the oil.

If you'd taken the time to read/comprehend what I'd posted, you'd have seen that I, too, desire that we -- as the occupier -- withdraw, and surrender all control to another body, capable of guiding Iraq to a fruitful planned statehood. Pretty difficult to be a colonizing power once you've surrendered all power to someone else.

We must pull out now. Our troops are doing NO good there. They are not trained at being peace-keepers, are too trigger-happy and instilling more animosity with the U.S. knowing that we are mostly after the oil. We must, however, pay for reconstruction of the damage that was done to their Country.

the whole thing is already a goddamn civil war...let it happen..its their country...let the chips fall where they may...our kids didnt start this..some fratboy boob in the white house did..
www.bringthemhomenow.com
why the hell should my kid or anyone elses be killed or wounded for this shit? bring them all home now.

> why the hell should my kid or anyone elses be killed
> or wounded for this shit? bring them all home now.

The simplest, harshest answer is because *WE* supported it. A sufficient number of dumbfxxks in our representative democracy have voted into power a bunch of lunatics, and now we are reaping what we have sown. Though, unfortunately, up to 10,000 Iraqi civilians have also been harvested, because of our country's negligence at the voting booth.

Blame Bush, the fratboy boob, all you want, but he's not in power solely because of the Supreme Court, butterfly ballots, Ralph Nader, right-wing media, etc.

AMERICA invaded Iraq. This is now *OUR* mess. We would be just as guilty of genocide in pulling out -- knowing what was to come -- as the Nazis, Serbians, etc.

A population under the boot of a foreign force of infidels is far more damaging to the psyche and prospects of a culture than allowing them to settle their own differences.

In any event, how many decades would you propose that we continue to keep them under the american boot of repression?

> At least they would have the dignity of having their
> own civil war

Oh, yes, I'm sure the millions of people killed in the civil wars over time have felt all sorts of dignity. Genocide is most honorable, even on the receiving end.


> A population under the boot of a foreign force of infidels
> is far more damaging to the psyche and prospects of a culture
> than allowing them to settle their own differences.

I'd agree with you if the bargaining tools of the Iraqis weren't AK-47s and plastic explosives.

Not sure you read my post, though you appear to have replied to it. Nobody's saying they shouldn't resolve their own differences. I'm simply saying that scurrying out of Iraq without any concern for the vacuum left in our wake, as the post to which I replied alluded, would be inhuman. Just look at the looting that occurred in the first days after the fall.

As I said, we should turn over *everything* to the UN ASAP, and only contribute where/how the UN requests. The UN could then act as an unbiased mediator between Iraqi ethnic, religious and political factions, to aid in the country's stabilization. We cannot serve that role, because we were the invaders, remain the occupiers, and the Iraqis (rightfully!) feel we're there only for the oil.


> In any event, how many decades would you propose that we
> continue to keep them under the american boot of repression?

Very visual, but unrelated to my original post. (see "turn over all control to the UN") Here's a similar question for you... How many hundreds of thousands must die before you'd consider a civil war "undignified"?

If you had been around when America had its own civil war would you have appreciated another country coming here with their guns blazing to stop it? Or was it better that America handle its affairs by itself? Just curious.

Don

I firmly believe that if the shoe were on the other foot, as it were, that 'murikans wouldn't be so gung ho.

That is, if someone invaded this country 'for our own good' we wouldn't be at all happy about it.

NNN0LHI queries... If you had been around when America had its own civil war would you have appreciated another country coming here with their guns blazing to stop it? Or was it better that America handle its affairs by itself?

Interesting question, but it's not analogous to the situation in Iraq. There *was* no civil war in Iraq, until WE made it possible; therefore, we have the responsibility to *TRY* to help stabilize the situation. And, in my opinion, the only route to stabilization is by surrendering all power and control to the UN, as a mediating body, and only participate how/where the UN dictates.

If you're looking for a model on which to base what will happen in Iraq should we simply withdraw, meld Bosnia with Afghanistan.

Pulling out is not an option?

Of course it is, it's just a bad one.

So lets go looking for a good option... hmmmmm. Yes, there's a good chance of civil war in Iraq, and we may have to take responsibility for starting it. But the reality is, Iraq is a dysfunctional state. It was cobbled together by the Brits after WWI with the express purpose of keeping it divided and week. Same goes for many colonial states throughout the world. Why waste all of our energy, manpower and resources to try to stop it? Why get in the middle of a blood feud?

My point is this: there are forces at work in the world that are stronger than empires. People have a natural desire to be with others like themselves. IMO, the U.N. and G7 ought to begin addressing national boundries that were so massively disrupted in the 19th and 20th centuries, and redraw the map. The new countries should represent natural constituencies who have control over local resources. Foreign nationals in those areas should be offered citizenship. I know it's pie in the sky, but trying to stop the forces of nature, and nationalism is one, is even more pie in the sky.

I say turn over power to those whose values are closest to ours and support them the same way we've supported Israel for the last 40 years. If they're not strong and popular enough to get a foothold there, why should they control the majorities in their communities? At least then we could have some cover against charges by Islamists that the US is only pro Israel. Get our troops the hell out of there. As long as we are there, all hatred is directed towards us.

I wholly agree with the concept of remapping boundaries and forming a federation of states, if not outright nations. Problems arise, of course, for the minority populations in the newly drawn regions -- and in assignment of oil revenues. A federation of states would minimize the threat to Turkey of an "independent" Kurdistan, and would allow for distribution of oil revenues across all of former Iraq's regions.


> Get our troops the hell out of there. As long as we
> are there, all hatred is directed towards us.

Wholly agree. We need to turn over control and mediation to the UN, and *then* withdraw -- as the UN requests. I'm simply stating that withdrawing without consideration for the consequences would be inhuman. (Or, perhaps more accurately, too human.)

Unfortunately we are stuck with this one. Probably for the rest of our lives. The best we can hope for is that we can share some of the rebuilding effort with the world.

If a Democratic President were to keep our troops in Iraq until the situation "stabilizes", an Iraqi-version of Vietnamization, we will be stuck there for a long time.

to sign up to be a policeman in Iraq. And I mean DESPARATE!

Is there another reason?

I know I would.

Not wholly different from our very own "volunteer" army.

We're up to 18 killed and 30 injured...

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20040214/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraq&cid=540&ncid=716

Wild West..middle eastern style..
He fancies himself as a Matt Dillon kind of guy.. only Matt did his own fighting, and * prefers to send OPK to do his dirty work

eom

Same story, from UsaToday.com

-------
Up to 50 attackers went from room to room of the Iraqi Civil Defense Corps compound in Fallujah, throwing grenades and firing automatic weapons, said one police officer.
-------

That's the story.

many before: hmmmmm
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=540&e=2&u=/ap/20040214/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraq

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=540&e=1&u=/ap/20040214/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraq

"We have to take risk to a certain extent, by taking our hands off the controls," he said. "It's their country, it's their future. Our job is to help them help themselves."

incompetents are thrown out of the White House? Things just keep getting worse in Iraq and here at home. Somehow, we have to get the Republicans out of Congress.

Tell * and his cronies to ask some REAL military people what that means. He and the likes of him could care less about anything but power, oil and money and their own hides.

soldiers or police that got killed.

(I would conclude also that there is no difference between an Iraqi 'police' and 'soldier'. Anyone one who's been overseas knows what I mean. It's some kind of game AWOL/Cheney/Rumsfeld are playing into the willing Whore Press.)

Attack Kills Iraqis, Frees Inmates
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/02/24/iraq/main541815.shtml

Story

-SNIP-

Qais Jameel, a wounded policeman, said some of the attackers spoke in a foreign language. “It sounded like gibberish to me. It wasn’t Arabic,” he said from his hospital bed, the sheets soaked in his blood.
-SNIP-

-SNIP-

Lt. Col. Sabri said 17 people were killed — almost all police — along with four attackers, two of whom he said carried Lebanese passports. He said he believed all the attackers were non-Iraqis.

-SNIP-

-SNIP-

The gunmen, shouting Islamic slogans “God is great” and “There is no god but Allah,” also attacked the nearby, heavily barricaded compound of the Iraqi Civil Defense Corps that Abizaid visited Thursday. Iraqi security forces battled with the attackers for a half hour in the streets, taking cover behind concrete blocks amid a hail of gunfire.

-SNIP-


Any ideas why this foreign language may have been? What were foreign fighters after that would cause them to attack the same area inside of one week? Why would they free criminals? I also read in another story that up to 70 attackers were involved. What light does this shed on the seized documents that claim there is a problem recruiting resistance fighters?

Jay

made up of members from other countries. That is why some sounded like they were talking "gibberish".

but I'm not so sure about Al-Qiada. If AQ was is having so much trouble with recruitment, why would they attack the same, seemingly low value, spot twice in one week? The risk would be enormous Also AQs' goal is to fight Americans not Iraqis. What counties were these people from? If they were Arabic one would think that the police officer could identify the attackers language, even though he could not understand it.

Jay

If the AQ can keep Iraq in chaos, it just makes their job a lot more easier.

> If AQ was is having so much trouble with recruitment,
> why would they attack the same, seemingly low value,
> spot twice in one week?

Possibly to test defenses of the compound. Also, with 100 prisoners inside, that's a lot of men on the sidelines. And, who knows, maybe one or two of them was of more value to AQ.


> Roon replied:
> If the AQ can keep Iraq in chaos, it just makes their
> job a lot more easier.

Right, agreed.

cops!!!!!!!!

This attack is terrible. What are you talking about?

Is Fallujah, a city of 200,000, firmly in the control of the Iraqi "insurgency"? The question is worth asking today, after insurgents entered a local police station without much resistance, freeing over 100 prisoners, then attacked an Iraqi "Civil defense" compound in a dawn raid.

According to all accounts, the insurgents performed a team insertion with special tactics - suggesting that they have some military training in a formal setting; mopreover, they attacked in well over platoon strength numbers in daylight.

Here's the kicker: the compound they attacked was the very same visited by US Middle East Commander John Abizaid just days ago - a visit during which both he and Major General Charles Swanack (commander of the 82nd Airborne Division) came under RPG fire from insurgents, who may or may not have been tipped off. It seems that the insurgents are saying the following: In Fallujah, we make the policy, and we do what we want, when we want. In other words, we have the power here, and you come and go at our discretion.

What we are seeing now is reminiscent of NLF "semi-control" of governmental structures in rural Vietnam during the early 1960's (see, for example, Jeffrey Race's brilliant "War Comes to Long An: Revolutionary Conflict in a Vietnamese Province"). We've already seen that Samarrah is more or less "liberated," with insurgents operating at will. Is the whole of the so called "Sunni Triangle" semi-controlled by insurgent forces?

Lebanese Passports.

Who are these guys? All politics aside, I sure hope the Army hunts them down before they kill again. We're losing this war and while Bush is responsible, the consequences will affect all Americans.

why bother? Not our country. Walk away, it isn't "unthinkable."

I'll tell you why we bother. Because in his infinite wisdom, George Bush created absolute chaos in Iraq and we owe it to the Iraqi people to fix the mess we made.

This is a moral issue.

If we leave, there's civil war and tens of thousands die. That's absolutely clear.

That's not in our interests and that certainly isn't in the Iraqi people's.

I'm baffled by the "withdraw and let the chips fall as they may" attitudes. Even KUCINICH doesn't support unconditional withdrawal.

I have no doubt that you harbor noble, democratic ambitions for Iraq.

The people in charge however, by all accounts, by their own actions - do not.

They will do nothing but throw bodies and money into a giant bonfire until stopped.

That's absolutely clear.

By the way, do you regret boosting the war back in 2002-3? Does it seem like a big stinking mistake to you yet?

Lets get a Democrat elected in November. I don't believe that Bush has the credibility to do much good in Iraq if he wanted to.

Iraq is certainly costing us dearly. But leaving now - that would cost us much more.

that Iraq will descend in to bloody civil war the day after American forces have withdrawn, should they withdraw prior to the establishment of a stable (and, our friends in the Pentagon no doubt wet their pillows with fervent nightly hopes, "friendly" and "controllable") political structure. I have, like everyone else, seen many strong arguments supporting this contention, but I do sometimes wonder whether ideological or interested assumptions drive the real force of those arguments. We all, of course, remember the supposed bloodbath that would take place were we to exit Vietnam - a bloodbath that never occured. No doubt the vanquished comprador elements and much of the populace suffered greatly for some time after the war (the ethnic Chinese of Cholon, for example, made up much of the "boatlift" population), but the Red Cross reported that "retribution" in the former RVN was less severe than that seen in France and Belgium after WWII (though nobody likes to get into the game of comparative catastrophe). Most former ARVN soldiers spent 3 days in "reeducation" camps, though officers spent more time, and some were killed outright. Still, point being that we should investigate the assumptions that drive these arguments.

I tend to agree that a bloody civil war will erupt should we leave, but sometimes I wonder. Moreover, sometimes I wonder whether our staying isn't what really drives the violence at this point, and I wonder whether our staying is the only preventative solution, or whether other solutions would address the problem without simultaneously spurring the violence.

the North and South Vietnamese. Their differences were purely political, and once the South was overrun, South Vietnamese were for the most integrated into the Communist state's soceity. The problems arose for the Montagnards, Christians and other minorities.

Iraq's Shias, Sunni, Kurds and Turkmen have been fighting for control for a thousand years, and they will each be fighting for their own supremacy. Only the US can establish the kind of federal state that is absolutely necessary to prevent a bloodbath. Another difference with Vietnam was that in Vietnam there was an alternate order - the government of North Vietnam was coming in. Here there is nothing but chaos on all sides, and a power vacuum tends to amplify choas, not reduce it.

The point was to draw a parallel mainly at the level of dire predictions v. actual consequences rather than to compare the situations, about which you quite rightly draw out the differences. (I would hesitate only on this point: that there were nothing but political differences between southern and northern Vietnamese; I also did point out the problem for the ethnic minorities by mentioning the ethnic Chinese in southern urban areas, who traditionally served as a merchant class within Vietnamese society).

Well, almost all. This non sequitur was slipped in mid-paragraph, and kinda hangs there:

"Only the US can establish the kind of federal state that is absolutely necessary to prevent a bloodbath."

Whether or not this position can be justified is one of the questions; iyt certainly isn't justified in your post, but rather presents itself as an axiom. And I believe you meant the "Coalition," rather than the US, yes? ;-)

and Iraqis might suddenly recognize the commonality of their shared experiences and live in bliss for all eternity.

But the more likely scenario is a bloody civil war, with the prospect of ethnic cleansing and even genocide.

We can't risk it.

Whether or not this position can be justified is one of the questions; iyt certainly isn't justified in your post, but rather presents itself as an axiom. And I believe you meant the "Coalition," rather than the US, yes? ;-)

No, that's simply my contention. The "Coalition," to the extent that it exists, is really irrevelent (with all due respect to the Solomon Islands). What's required is decisive action by the United States with the unconditional backing of the United Nations, NATO and the Arab League. Its my belief that a federal state is the only "free" society possible for Iraq that preserves its territorial integrity. Replacing Saddam's autocracy with another isn't a solution. If you have another hypothesis, I'd like to hear it.

I also did point out the problem for the ethnic minorities by mentioning the ethnic Chinese in southern urban areas, who traditionally served as a merchant class within Vietnamese society
I saw that and I just added that other ethnic and religious minorities also faced discrimination. Ethnic Vietnamese Catholics, for example, did not fair so well as might have been hoped. But whereas in Vietnam the population was still largely homogenous - Iraq's isn't.

What's required is decisive action by the United States with the unconditional backing of the United Nations, NATO and the Arab League. Its my belief that a federal state is the only "free" society possible for Iraq that preserves its territorial integrity.

Given that the current leadership of the United States has shown little else than bad faith throughout this entire process (a euphemism here, for the massacre and chaos it actuated), under no circumstances should support by other bodies be "unconditional." Just the opposite. Heavy conditions must be placed on US action precisely in order to effect a "free" society in Iraq, and not simply a state form that is de facto autocratic, with the dictates of the US political and economic apparatus standing in for local dictatorship. The US must not be permitted to effect the ideological construction whereby GENOCIDE and ETHNIC CLEANSING is the one term, and FREEDOM is the other, if that freedom is merely formal, and actually stands in for foreign control and neo-colonialism. This is, of course, the current situation, as if we have no options but an unethical indifference on the one hand, and tyrannical foreign (i.e., US)control on the other. It is precisely between these false choices that the UN, NATO, and the Arab League must mediate, and must set conditions that enable a third option (that is, authentic self-determination) to emerge. Otherwise, we are practicing nothing but the mission civilisatrice of the old colonialism.

with the present leadership in place, so that's a non-issue.

I think we both agree that the top priority is getting new leadership.

The US must not be permitted to effect the ideological construction whereby GENOCIDE and ETHNIC CLEANSING is the one term, and FREEDOM is the other, if that freedom is merely formal, and actually stands in for foreign control and neo-colonialism.

Foreign control is a fact of life at present. But of course you're right - I'm talking about working to setup a legitimate Iraqi-run federal Republic. In the long run, foreign control is not an option.

Otherwise, we are practicing nothing but the mission civilisatrice of the old colonialism.

Call it what you like, but we need to create Iraqi institutions for self-government where none exist. That isn't what happened in most colonial societies, where no matter what one did, one was always subservient to a foreign viceroy. We need to build up not just the governing council, but inferior democratic bodies throughout the country.

I would expect that a number of the people now fighting the
US in Iraq are well aquainted with the works of Gen. Giap and
other practitioners of People's War. I would speculate that the
strategic purpose of the attack is precisely to demonstrate that
fact. And it is quite significant, in that it is the first public
demonstration of this order that I am aware of.

The following is a quote from GHW Bush explaining why he did not go to Baghdad in GW1.

“Trying to eliminate Saddam... would have incurred incalculable human and political costs. Apprehending him was probably impossible... we would have been forced to occupy Baghdad and, in effect, rule Iraq... there was no viable 'exit strategy' we could see, violating another of our principles... Going in and occupying Iraq, thus unilaterally exceeding the United Nations' mandate, would have destroyed the precedent of international response to aggression that we hoped to establish. Had we gone the invasion route, the United States could conceivably still be an occupying power in a bitterly hostile land."---GHW Bush

Iraqis are going to have to take over security. Now that the insurgents were successful on this raid, something similiar will happen again. The insurgents plan is to hit the Iraqis that are working with the Americans to intimidate others not to work for us.

When I heard about this on the news this AM, I thought "where were the Americans?" It's Fallujah and there were no Americans near by? Sounds like it's Vietnam again. Vietnamization failed and so will Iraqimazation. Once we leave, Iraq desolves into civil war.

Thanks Bush for this nightmare, you cowardly SOB! :grr: :argh:

This hit me this afternoon when I saw the reports on TV, I read it this morning here.

Remember what Putin said the last time he was at Camp David?

He said (can't find the quote) that he/they had been contacted just after 9/11 by ~'powers' that the coming attack in Afghanistan could provide an incredible opportunity for the big bear to exact revenge or at least weaken the US. He said that he did not chose that path mainly due to the personal relationship between he and W and that had that not been in place he couldn't say what he would have done. This of course passed right through W's head and he spoke about something else.

So how do we know (or could we) that at least some of the insurgents aren't Russian trained or supported?