NationStates Jolt Archive

85 Militants Killed In U.S. Raid (http://www.military.com/NewsContent/0,13319,FL_raid_032405,00.html?ESRC=eb.nl)
Associated Press
March 24, 2005

BAGHDAD, Iraq - U.S. and Iraqi forces killed 85 militants at a suspected training camp along the marshy shores of a remote lake, one of the highest guerrilla death tolls of the two-year insurgency, officials said Wednesday. They said citizens emboldened by the January elections are increasingly turning in intelligence tips.

The raid at Lake Tharthar in central Iraq turned up booby-trapped cars, suicide-bomber vests, weapons and training documents, Iraqi Maj. Gen. Rashid Feleih told state television. He said the insurgents included Iraqis, Filipinos, Algerians, Moroccans, Afghans and Arabs from neighboring countries.

"What's really remarkable is that the citizens this time really took the initiative to provide us with very good information," Feleih said.

In three days, according to Iraqi and U.S. officials' accounts, troops have killed at least 128 insurgents nationwide, culminating in the announcement of Tuesday's attack by Iraqi commandos, backed by U.S. air and ground fire. On Sunday, U.S. soldiers killed 26 insurgents south of Baghdad, while a fight during an ambush on an Iraqi security envoy killed 17 militants on Monday.

"This string of successes does have positive repercussions in that it may convince Iraqis not supporting the insurgents - but not supporting the United States either - to perceive that the tide is turning and not go with the insurgents," said Nora Bensahel, a Washington-based Iraq analyst for Rand Corp.

This is good. What's happening in the middle east is good for the region, and good for the world. More and mroe countries in the Middle east are becoming democracies or taking steps in that direction. Denounce this one, liberals!

Democracy is fine, but at what price? Is the bloodshed ALL that necessary? So, does having a democracy equate shedding thousands of litres of blood onto the ground? Massacuring innocents in the name of democracy? Yes, they happen to be in the wrong place at the wrong time, but, you know, they were there first - it is there home.

Let's think about it, if not for the presence of the Americans, the Iraqis would have no need to fight the insurgents, worry about being attacked and fighting against the invading force. It was American policy that started it.

There was the intent to bring "freedom" and "democracy" to the mideast, but, once again, at what cost? For a nation that values the sanctity of life, I find it very hypocritical for such a war to be going on as long as this.

Democracy is fine, but at what price? Is the bloodshed ALL that necessary? So, does having a democracy equate shedding thousands of litres of blood onto the ground? Massacuring innocents in the name of democracy? Yes, they happen to be in the wrong place at the wrong time, but, you know, they were there first - it is there home.

Let's think about it, if not for the presence of the Americans, the Iraqis would have no need to fight the insurgents, worry about being attacked and fighting against the invading force. It was American policy that started it.

There was the intent to bring "freedom" and "democracy" to the mideast, but, once again, at what cost? For a nation that values the sanctity of life, I find it very hypocritical for such a war to be going on as long as this.
Agreed.

I mean, yes, Hussein IS an asshole and he did some very nasty stuff to the minorities, but, let's look at the bigger picture. The country was fairly viable until sanctions were imposed. Even after trade sanctions, there was still a certain degree to the quality of life. They also had one thing thet lack now - order! Yes, it was under a dictatorship, but, sometimes, you have to consider that, well, democracy is great and has its perks, but, you can't just go in and impose your beliefs onto others.

In fact, even though it was a dictatorship, the women in Iraq had more freedom then their counterparts in other Arab nations. Theu weren't subject to the laws of Islam (Sharia). It was a fairly secular nation.

Interesting thought... would it be reasonable to arm our soldiers with tranquilizers rather than lethal weapons? Then these insurgents could be imprisoned rather than murdered.

My little scifi dream of how america should fight... our troops should have superb body armor that can withstand the impact of a bullet or the heat of an explosion. They should be armed with tranquilizers or rubber bullets, and nonlethal gas. Basically, they should be fairly invulnerable troops that disable rather than destroy. Probably too impracticle though. ::Shrug::

We've been seeing a lot more cooperation by ordinary Iraqis since the Hilla bombings.. The insurgents dug their own graves when they pulled that crap. The average Iraqi is much more likely to point US or Iraqi troops in the right direction now.

Also, the insurgents have learned that it's a lot easier to survive shooting at Iraqi army than at US troops, so attacks on our people have dropped by more than half, while attacks on Iraqi troops have been consistent. Many Iraqi troops are taking this very personally.

Democracy is fine, but at what price? Is the bloodshed ALL that necessary? So, does having a democracy equate shedding thousands of litres of blood onto the ground? Massacuring innocents in the name of democracy? Yes, they happen to be in the wrong place at the wrong time, but, you know, they were there first - it is there home.

Let's think about it, if not for the presence of the Americans, the Iraqis would have no need to fight the insurgents, worry about being attacked and fighting against the invading force. It was American policy that started it.

There was the intent to bring "freedom" and "democracy" to the mideast, but, once again, at what cost? For a nation that values the sanctity of life, I find it very hypocritical for such a war to be going on as long as this.


Your so clueless its terrifying. We arent deciding how much blood needs to be shed-the insurgents are. What innocents where massacred? Oh-you mean when saddam was still in power? All the people that where "arrested" and tortured and murdered? Women who were raped in front of their fa,ilies and then all killed? Are thise the innocents you refer to? No-now that the US is there, you're surddenely a mis-guided and misinformed civil rights hero. If the Americans were no longer there, a sadaam toadie like "Chemical Ali" would now be in charge and more of the same would be going on.
And this isnt a long war-not by any means- the Iraqi army was put down in a minimum amount of time-the US campaign gave "Blitzkreig" a new meaning. The US kept civilian life and property damage to a minimum-less than any other country would ever care to attempt.

Interesting thought... would it be reasonable to arm our soldiers with tranquilizers rather than lethal weapons? Then these insurgents could be imprisoned rather than murdered.

My little scifi dream of how america should fight... our troops should have superb body armor that can withstand the impact of a bullet or the heat of an explosion. They should be armed with tranquilizers or rubber bullets, and nonlethal gas. Basically, they should be fairly invulnerable troops that disable rather than destroy. Probably too impracticle though. ::Shrug::

A good tranq gun has a 50 yard range if you're lucky, a rifle maybe 100.. also, you need a different amount of tranquilizer for each individual, which is impossible to calculate as you're being fired on. Finally, tranquilizers don't act immediately - they take minutes, allowing for escape or further attack until the person is subdued.

[QUOTE=Kryozerkia]I mean, yes, Hussein IS an asshole and he did some very nasty stuff to the minorities, but, let's look at the bigger picture. The country was fairly viable until sanctions were imposed. Even after trade sanctions, there was still a certain degree to the quality of life. They also had one thing thet lack now - order! Yes, it was under a dictatorship, but, sometimes, you have to consider that, well, democracy is great and has its perks, but, you can't just go in and impose your beliefs onto others.

Order? Order imposed by a secret police force that kidnapped random citizens off of the street. Order imposed by fear torture mutilation and murder. I guess the videos of sadaam's soldiers torturing civilians and laughing were just US propoganda,right? sadaam's one insane bastard son even imposed prder on the Iraqi soccer team he controlled-God only knows how many players and their families were maimed and killed when they didnt play up to his expectations.

Remember Mcnamara fake body counts? (http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/BC0C5535-3F85-467F-862A-06730D3A9A77.htm)

A good tranq gun has a 50 yard range if you're lucky, a rifle maybe 100.. also, you need a different amount of tranquilizer for each individual, which is impossible to calculate as you're being fired on. Finally, tranquilizers don't act immediately - they take minutes, allowing for escape or further attack until the person is subdued.



maybe the US could be required, by world law, to have its opposing enemy combatants all fill out a questionnaire with their heights and weights and blood types so we get it right.

maybe the US could be required, by world law, to have its opposing enemy combatants all fill out a questionnaire with their heights and weights and blood types so we get it right.
Thats not a bad idea, they could give details of where the WMDS are as well

I'm curious as to what you mean by "reverse domino effect," Et. Is it that:

By succeeding in the fight against insurgents, the U.S. is winning over more of the unaffiliated population than it is alienating through the occupation of the country?

Or that by creating this conflict, the U.S. is drawing in and killing militant jihadists from around the world at a rate surpassing the rate at which the conflict may generate sympathy among and thereby bring new insurgents to the conflict?

The article leans toward the former, but your highlighting leans toward the latter.

either way it's good.

maybe the US could be required, by world law, to have its opposing enemy combatants all fill out a questionnaire with their heights and weights and blood types so we get it right.

Either that, or we just use an overdose amount in each dart, say, 4cc's of Rompun, 2cc's of Ketamine, and become even more lethal than we are today..

That way, if you're aiming for a headshot and instead wing your target in the ear or the cheek, he dies anyway. If you hit him in the toe, he dies. Hit him in the hand, he dies, all in about 40 seconds, without the possibility of resuscitation. Explosive-head darts, immediate delivery.

See, bullets aren't the worst thing we could be firing.. ;)

either way it's good.

Not so much. The first possibility is definitely for the good, the second is a much more mixed bag.

First off, I think it's overly optimistic to assume that there's any chance of drawing any more than a tiny fraction of foreign insurgents into Iraq. Second, I think that believing that it's possible to kill them all this way underestimates the depth of the blowback. Now instead of some pissed Iraqis, we'll have the pissed family and friends of some Indonesians, some Iranians, some Syrians, folks all over the place. Third, this seems a generally nasty business. The goal, if you'll remember, is to keep the U.S. safe from terrorist attack. Insurgents who fight to defend themselves, their turf, or their ideology are very different from terrorists who attack preemptively. Basically, this outlook justifies goading people who may never have considered a terrorist attack into a fight, and then lumps them with the terrorist menace.

The latter is not all for the good.

Not so much. The first possibility is definitely for the good, the second is a much more mixed bag.

First off, I think it's overly optimistic to assume that there's any chance of drawing any more than a tiny fraction of foreign insurgents into Iraq. Second, I think that believing that it's possible to kill them all this way underestimates the depth of the blowback. Now instead of some pissed Iraqis, we'll have the pissed family and friends of some Indonesians, some Iranians, some Syrians, folks all over the place. Third, this seems a generally nasty business. The goal, if you'll remember, is to keep the U.S. safe from terrorist attack. Insurgents who fight to defend themselves, their turf, or their ideology are very different from terrorists who attack preemptively. Basically, this outlook justifies goading people who may never have considered a terrorist attack into a fight, and then lumps them with the terrorist menace.

The latter is not all for the good.

Sorry, but What Iraqis attacked the US?

Sorry, but What Iraqis attacked the US?
I'm sure some Iraqi-Americans have littered on US soil. That's a direct assault on the US.

Sorry, but What Iraqis attacked the US?

I'm not saying that Iraq had any connection to 9/11, but if we buy the WMD line, Iraq was invaded to keep the U.S. safe.

When I mentioned "pissed Iraqis" above, it was a reference to: "He said the insurgents included Iraqis, Filipinos, Algerians, Moroccans, Afghans and Arabs from neighboring countries" from the OP. The pissed Iraqis being the Iraqi insurgents who attacked U.S. troops in Iraq--whether because they're militant jihadists or because they don't like being invaded is irrelevant--and those who become sympathetic/angry over the deaths of these insurgents.

First up: Saddam = bad, getting rid of him = Good.

Second; I have no axe with the US, I like you Honest.

Third: "The Goal was to keep the US safe" ?
If that was the aim, Oh boy, you could have found better ways.
Not going into Iraq, signing up to peace, enviromental and trade agreements that were less pro US would have helped. By showing that you weren't self centred and did not follow the "might is right" theory.
The US Gov. Has a reputation for dismissing anything it doesn't like the look of regardless of other peoples consequences, That is what sets it up for terrorist attack, they try to strike back. If you don't give them any reason to go blame you wont get hit.

Sorry to anyone I've offended with this, Most of the US posters here are fully aware of the point I'm trying to make.

I find it very hypocritical for such a war to be going on as long as this.
Contrary to what you may have come to believe from watching television, problems in the real world generally take longer than either 30 or 60 minutes to resolve. Sorry, but life doesn't imitate television, perhaps because it's not "art."

Third: "The Goal was to keep the US safe" ?
If that was the aim, Oh boy, you could have found better ways.

I agree with you here. I don't believe this is why we went in either, but the stated reason was because of WMDs--not to make the world safe for democracy. The democracy thing was cooked after the WMD thing fell through.

Not going into Iraq, signing up to peace, enviromental and trade agreements that were less pro US would have helped. By showing that you weren't self centred and did not follow the "might is right" theory.
The US Gov. Has a reputation for dismissing anything it doesn't like the look of regardless of other peoples consequences, That is what sets it up for terrorist attack, they try to strike back. If you don't give them any reason to go blame you wont get hit.

I agree with this also, and this is why I think the first "reverse domino" thing (winning the "hearts and minds" battle and gaining Iraqi support) is a good thing, while the second (using Iraq sort of as bait to draw out jihadists from other areas) is bad. It gives folks more things to blame on the U.S. I mean, have we learned nothing from "The Godfather"?

You want to hear something funny. Al Jezeera reported that the "Freedom Fighters" retook the camp. Also stated that not as many fighters were killed as coalition says were.

Democracy is fine, but at what price? Is the bloodshed ALL that necessary? So, does having a democracy equate shedding thousands of litres of blood onto the ground? Massacuring innocents in the name of democracy? Yes, they happen to be in the wrong place at the wrong time, but, you know, they were there first - it is there home.

Let's think about it, if not for the presence of the Americans, the Iraqis would have no need to fight the insurgents, worry about being attacked and fighting against the invading force. It was American policy that started it.

There was the intent to bring "freedom" and "democracy" to the mideast, but, once again, at what cost? For a nation that values the sanctity of life, I find it very hypocritical for such a war to be going on as long as this.

To a degree this is kinda what I've been saying. I do believe that good will come out of this, that there will be some result that can be pointed to and said, "This is better than it was." No doubt. But what troubles me, and angers me when it's brushed aside with blind warhawk fed zeal, is are the ends going to justify the means?

The conflict, the struggle right now, is the dividend of the 'good' that was the cold war. 'We' are able to point to the cold war and say, "This is good, this is no more, it is better than it was." But the means by which we went about it have resulted in what we are dealing with right now. And for all the threat and menace of the cold war, we where never directly attacked. But the dividend, the by-product of that 'good' was able to attack us. So it seems that the idealogy of the 'reverse domino' is pretty fitting. By trying to prevent the 'domino' of communism all we really managed to do was get the dominos to fall back on us.

And yet the scary thing is we seem to have learned nothing from those lessons, continuing to think that the means can be disregarded if we simply continue to cheerlead the ends. I don't know how much more 'good' we can survive, if the attacks where the dividend of the 'good' of the cold war, then I fear the dividends of the 'good' here.