Operation Spear in Iraq My Help to End War Soon [Archive]

Man of the Century

19th June 2005, 04:24

U.S. Marines and Iraqi forces have killed about 50 insurgents so far in battles that raged Saturday inside a dusty frontier town in the American military's latest campaign to stop the infiltration of foreign fighters from neighboring Syria.

Operation Spear, or Romhe in Arabic, was in its second day in Karabilah, about 200 miles west of Baghdad. Karabilah has long been considered an insurgent hotbed.

The campaign is being waged by about 1,000 Marines and Iraqi forces, backed by main battle tanks, in the volatile Anbar province. About 100 insurgents have also been captured, the military said.

"Approximately 50 insurgents have been killed since the operation began" Friday, Marine Capt. Jeffrey Pool said from Ramadi, the provincial capital. "There have been no additional reports of military or civilian casualties as a result of the operation. No aviation assets have been
damaged or destroyed."

This can be a major contribution to an early end to the killing, which I am in big favor of, and Iraqi people can use a break from the suicide bombing and outside forces. The sooner this ends, the better.

redstar2000

19th June 2005, 13:56

This can be a major contribution to an early end to the killing, which I am in big favor of, and Iraqi people can use a break from the suicide bombing and outside forces. The sooner this ends, the better.

I didn't think there were any people on this board who actually believed U.S. claims of "victory over the insurgents".

It's not going to "end soon" nor should it.

It won't end until the U.S.-U.K. imperialist coalition is defeated.

Sorry to be the bearer of "bad news".

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif

dso79

19th June 2005, 13:56

Over the past years there have been many offensives that were supposed to end the violence (Falluja, Samarra, Tall Afar etc). None of them were successful; they just pissed off the Iraqis and resistance actually increased. Even US officials have admitted that military operations alone will never end the violence.

The statements from the marines sound like propaganda to me. They always claim to have killed dozens of insurgents without harming the civilians, but when reporters arrive at the scene they usually find destroyed houses, dead civilians and a lot of angry Iraqis - and very few insurgents.

Furthermore, many of those insurgents are local people, who are just trying to defend their homes and their families from the invaders.

Man of the Century

19th June 2005, 14:16

Dso:
Please don't even try to express that bull-crap. The locals are hardly "defending themselves" by killing their fellow countrymen-women-children. The bulk are genuine insurgents; gimme a break.

Redstar, how you could want this to go on just to prove some point is disgusting. And where are you getting your news reports? Islamic and Arabic propaganda machines no doubt. Stop viewing the world through an agenda and seek unbias views for your decisions.

xnj

19th June 2005, 16:13

Originally posted by Man of the [email protected] 19 2005, 01:16 PM
Stop viewing the world through an agenda and seek unbias views for your decisions.
Hahaha, yeah, like the US military!

Commie Girl

19th June 2005, 17:31

Originally posted by Man of the [email protected] 19 2005, 07:16 AM
Dso:
Please don't even try to express that bull-crap. The locals are hardly "defending themselves" by killing their fellow countrymen-women-children. The bulk are genuine insurgents; gimme a break.

Redstar, how you could want this to go on just to prove some point is disgusting. And where are you getting your news reports? Islamic and Arabic propaganda machines no doubt. Stop viewing the world through an agenda and seek unbias views for your decisions.
Nobody wants this to go on, but Redstar has pointed out that this is no different than the other offensives launched by the U$ occupiers.

The resistance, not insurgents, are not the ones killing women and children, it is the U$ military. Of course they are defending their families, homes, etc. If a military strike was launched against you and your family in your homes, you also would be defending! Dont be fooled by their propoganda, you need to find some external sources for reliable information coming out of Iraq

Video of the day after the attack on Fallujah (http://www.bushflash.com/)

Paroxsiticxc

19th June 2005, 18:00

Man of the century... *sighs* such ignorance.. You my friend support the fascist U.S. governments' campaign of mass murder in Iraq? Then you question us? Comrade it is obvious you get your news from right-wing neo fascist propaganda like the military, and fox, and CNN no doubt. I don't appreciate a fascist sympathizer spreading bullshit like you do. So what the war "may end" soon but it's unlikely. And what's the point of a victory? so it ends? so we can come home saying "We won" leaving behind us a country in ruins and over 100,000 innocent people murdered? This is no victory, frankly i hope we lose this war, the Iraqi's have every right to defend themselves against the fascist invaders. The Iraqi Resistance is fighting an illegal unjust brutal occupation. The Germans occupied France in World War II, the French Resistance fought them in similiar ways the Iraqi Resistance fight us. But i guess just because it's the U.S. occupying a country that makes the resistance "terrorists" right? Pshh.. ignorance..

Man of the Century

19th June 2005, 18:04

Commie Girl: If I were defending America from invasion I would not plant a bomb in a place where it would indiscriminately blow up and kill innocent American citizens, including children. I suppose the purpose of the insurgents is to make life a "hell on earth" unless the coaltion leaves.

And you really believe that if the United States of America and United Kingdom left, the insurgents would:

A) have new elections, calling the current government puppets, OR

B) have a socialist revolution based upon workers' rights

pardon me, but if you think either would happen, you're nuts.

A certain part of them would put guns on trucks and declare city like dictatorships, some based on power, others on fundumentalism Islam. A civil war would break out (I'm not saying Iraq shouldn't necessarily be broken three ways, but that's not been decided yet.)

This continued, "They're killing our families so we're going to blow up everything until they leave" is nothing like a Vietcong experience. It's pathetic.

If the vast majority sided with the insurgents (they don't, and you know it) then there would have been a boycott of the election, nor merely a Sunni protest over it.

Also, I DON'T CARE HOW MUCH FIRE POWER THE U.S. A. AND U.K. HAVE, IF 70% OF IRAQ WERE AGAINST THEM, THE WAR WOULD BE OVER TODAY. YOU CANNOT EXPLAIN THAT.

bunk

19th June 2005, 18:20

Don't believe those news stories, there are actually far more coalition deaths than are reported on the western news including contractors and mercenary's; the second largest group of fighters in the coalition. Source:Guardian.

I don't support the resistance targeting civilians but i would consider that they might be planted by Mossad or the CIA some of the time.

I would also consider that there is already a civil war going on in Iraq, the media just hasn't spelled it out bluntly.

Commie Girl

19th June 2005, 18:37

Originally posted by Man of the [email protected] 19 2005, 11:04 AM
Commie Girl: If I were defending America from invasion I would not plant a bomb in a place where it would indiscriminately blow up and kill innocent American citizens, including children. I suppose the purpose of the insurgents is to make life a "hell on earth" unless the coaltion leaves.

And you really believe that if the United States of America and United Kingdom left, the insurgents would:

A) have new elections, calling the current government puppets, OR

B) have a socialist revolution based upon workers' rights

pardon me, but if you think either would happen, you're nuts.

A certain part of them would put guns on trucks and declare city like dictatorships, some based on power, others on fundumentalism Islam. A civil war would break out (I'm not saying Iraq shouldn't necessarily be broken three ways, but that's not been decided yet.)

This continued, "They're killing our families so we're going to blow up everything until they leave" is nothing like a Vietcong experience. It's pathetic.

If the vast majority sided with the insurgents (they don't, and you know it) then there would have been a boycott of the election, nor merely a Sunni protest over it.

Also, I DON'T CARE HOW MUCH FIRE POWER THE U.S. A. AND U.K. HAVE, IF 70% OF IRAQ WERE AGAINST THEM, THE WAR WOULD BE OVER TODAY. YOU CANNOT EXPLAIN THAT.
Stop watching FOX!

Have you considered that the people voted in the "election" as a means to an end to rid themselves of the occupation? There are many complex reasons why people turned out to vote, remember, Iraq was at one time a democracy! Stop watching U$ propoganda.

Of course the majority side with the RESISTANCE, they want to be free of the occupiers.

And dont buy into the "if you arent with us, you are against us mentallity", just because people support the Iraqis right to resist, does not mean people support the methods used by a few.

Man of the Century

19th June 2005, 19:00

Commie Girl:

1. Give me the % you believe side with the insurgency, and then explain why they haven't defeated the coalition forces.

2. Explain how you would, to drive invaders out of your country, leave bombs to kill anyone who walked by.

dso79

19th June 2005, 19:02

Please don't even try to express that bull-crap. The locals are hardly "defending themselves" by killing their fellow countrymen-women-children. The bulk are genuine insurgents; gimme a break.

Most insurgents aren’t terrorists, though some of them are. If these offensives had actually targeted those terrorists, they might have reduced the violence. The problem is that the US do not distinguish between terrorists, resistance fighters and civilians; they just move in and destroy the place. Needless to say, this only leads to more anger and more violence.

Also, I DON'T CARE HOW MUCH FIRE POWER THE U.S. A. AND U.K. HAVE, IF 70% OF IRAQ WERE AGAINST THEM, THE WAR WOULD BE OVER TODAY. YOU CANNOT EXPLAIN THAT.

The fact that most Iraqis aren't actively fighting the Americans doesn't mean that they support them. Opinion polls show that most Iraqis want the US to leave.

Man of the Century

19th June 2005, 19:12

I don't disagree w/ some of the point of view you have dso, I'm simply not like the majority here, who believe there is a relationship between the U.S. "losing" in Iraq (however that would be measured) and a victory for socialism. I know many here do believe that anything that harms America is a good thing, but this is very short sighted, from my POV.

Commie Girl

19th June 2005, 19:16

Originally posted by Man of the [email protected] 19 2005, 12:12 PM
I'm simply not like the majority here, who believe there is a relationship between the U.S. "losing" in Iraq (however that would be measured) and a victory for socialism. I know many here do believe that anything that harms America is a good thing, but this is very short sighted, from my POV.
:huh: I dont know anyone who suggested that a victory for the resistance is a victory for socialism.

People support the Iraqis RIGHT to resist an occupation.

Man of the Century

19th June 2005, 19:22

Do Iraqis then have a RIGHT to support the coalition troops in their counrty, and a RIGHT to support the current government?

bolshevik butcher

19th June 2005, 21:12

I don;t think the insurgency can really be beaten as such, unless the americans kill every last man in iraq.

redstar2000

20th June 2005, 14:32

Originally posted by Man of the [email protected] 19 2005, 01:22 PM
Do Iraqis then have a RIGHT to support the coalition troops in their counrty, and a RIGHT to support the current government?
Sure.

Just like some French supported the Nazi occupation.

After the war was over, the French hung people like that.

The Iraqis will probably do likewise...giving people like you something else to fuss about.

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif

Karl Marx's Camel

20th June 2005, 14:39

Please don't even try to express that bull-crap. The locals are hardly "defending themselves" by killing their fellow countrymen-women-children.

Where's "men"? I only see women and children. Is it okay to kill men?

Karl Marx's Camel

20th June 2005, 14:42

Most insurgents aren’t terrorists, though some of them are.

Evidence?

Severian

20th June 2005, 16:24

Originally posted by Man of the [email protected] 18 2005, 09:24 PM
About 100 insurgents have also been captured, the military said.

"Approximately 50 insurgents have been killed since the operation began" Friday, Marine Capt. Jeffrey Pool said from Ramadi, the provincial capital. "There have been no additional reports of military or civilian casualties as a result of the operation.
You might want to consider the possibly not all of those people were actually insurgents. Heck, the U.S. military may not know for sure.

It's also interesting to see the U.S. military relying on the "body count" as a measure of success; that's something they've rejected doing for many years. But they have no other measure in Iraq, apparently.

***

You're quite right that most Iraqis don't support the current armed resistance, though; in fact a great many hate it. It's downright mindless to speak of "the Iraqis" supporting the resistance, as both CommieGirl and Redstar do.

All evidence is, that support for the insurgents is drawn almost solely from the Sunni Arab minority.

It's also fairly clear that the different elements of armed resistance are in alliance with each other; if there are groups which only attack military targets they are in alliance with those who bomb mosques and marketplaces. Consider Falluja, defended both by Saddam Fedayeen with their military skills, the knowledge to build steel-reinforced bunkers, etc...and "al Qaeda in Iraq" with its car-bomb factories.

One occasionally hears of friction between the different elements...but only occasionally.

Redstar:

Just like some French supported the Nazi occupation.

After the war was over, the French hung people like that.

The Iraqis will probably do likewise...giving people like you something else to fuss about.

I'm quite sure that the Ba'athists, if they somehow get back into power, will kill opponents and suspected opponents just as indiscriminately as they did before. Including complete repression of the workers' organizations, which of course you consider quislings.

Let me suggest your support for this bloody repression against workers is class collaboration and class quisling behavior, far worse from a communist perspective than national treachery.

xnj

20th June 2005, 17:11

Originally posted by [email protected] 20 2005, 03:24 PM
I'm quite sure that the Ba'athists, if they somehow get back into power, will kill opponents and suspected opponents just as indiscriminately as they did before. Including complete repression of the workers' organizations, which of course you consider quislings.
I'm not sure if the Iraqi resistance = the Ba'athists. The US-trained death squads are drawn from "Ba'athist remnants" too: click (http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php?showtopic=36858). Besides various nationalists and Islamists, there are also communists in the resistance.

Let me suggest your support for this bloody repression against workers is class collaboration and class quisling behavior, far worse from a communist perspective than national treachery.
Can't it be argued that the pro-occupation unions and "leftist" parties are also practicing class collaboration--with the US ruling class?

dso79

20th June 2005, 18:29

Originally posted by [email protected] 20 2005, 01:42 PM

Most insurgents aren’t terrorists, though some of them are.

Evidence?

It’s an assumption based on the fact that most attacks target coalition forces and collaborators, while only a few target innocent civilians.

http://www.lefthook.org/Charts/CSIS.jpg

Where's "men"? I only see women and children.

It's right after "country" :rolleyes:

countrymen-women-children

bolshevik butcher

20th June 2005, 18:58

The other day it said 50 insrgents ahd been killled. This was a monor story! Imagine if it was 50 U$ marines!

romanm

20th June 2005, 20:50

What is sick is how the revisionist PIG CP of Iraq, sister party of the CP=U$A supports the occupation.

Severian

20th June 2005, 21:22

Originally posted by [email protected] 20 2005, 11:29 AM
It’s an assumption based on the fact that most attacks target coalition forces and collaborators, while only a few target innocent civilians.

http://www.lefthook.org/Charts/CSIS.jpg

Those figures are rather badly out of date...and neglect to mention that the attacks on civilians are far deadlier.

But what really has to be proved, is that those who attack occupying troops, and those who attack civilians, are separate.

Man of the Century

20th June 2005, 22:30

Severian,

A very good point, but that's just the problem: The insurgents do not differentiate, which takes their credibility away as defenders of a foreign free (coalition free?) Iraq. If they only attacked coalition forces, then they might be called patriots. But remember, the U.S. invented guerilla warfare (spelling is poor as I am drunk) BUT IT DID NOT INCLUDE KILLING WITH INTENT OR GROSS NEGLIGENCE, THE INNOCENT TORRIES AND WHIGS WHO WERE "CAUGHT IN THE CROSS-FIRE."

I believe, and I am a minority here, that the insurgency knows it's not popular, and seeks to win by making life a living hell for those who want the new government to succeed.

I am tired of claims that the insurgents/resistance is the popular front, while ;the Iraqis will not, en-mass- attack U.S. forces.

No one will discuss this.

redstar2000

20th June 2005, 23:41

Originally posted by Severian
Let me suggest your support for this bloody repression against workers is class collaboration and class quisling behavior, far worse from a communist perspective than national treachery.

:lol: :lol: :lol:

Only a Trotskyist (and not even all of them!) would suggest that American imperialism is "pro-working class"!

You may as well just go ahead and do it...you know, put that American flag on your car radio antenna.

And don't forget the "Support Our Troops" bumper sticker.

If we don't stop the barbarian hordes in Baghdad, they'll be storming the beaches of Long Island next! :lol:

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif

Severian

21st June 2005, 00:08

Redstar: Fish! Mellifluous malabar mahogany. Aluminum siding?

See, I can do non sequiturs as well as you can.

Severian

21st June 2005, 00:57

Originally posted by [email protected] 20 2005, 10:11 AM
I'm not sure if the Iraqi resistance = the Ba'athists. The US-trained death squads are drawn from "Ba'athist remnants" too: click (http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php?showtopic=36858).
Sure, there are Ba'athists and ex-Ba'athists on both sides...however, the ex-Ba'athists are not in charge of the current Iraqi government (since Allawi's electoral defeat.) The same cannot be said of the resistance. Its base of support is the same as the old regime's. It is full of Saddam Fedayeen and Special Republican Guard. And when vast bunkers like this are found, (http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200506/s1384942.htm) the only question is whether they were dug under the old regime, or furnished using the expertise of old-regime people.

Besides various nationalists and Islamists, there are also communists in the resistance.

Evidence? I seriously doubt that. The "Iraqi Patriotic Front" some people love to post statements from, is an exile propaganda front, created under the sponsorship of the Hussein regime before it fell. Based on its own statements.

Can't it be argued that the pro-occupation unions and "leftist" parties are also practicing class collaboration--with the US ruling class?

They sure are. I've pointed out before that the Iraqi CP is repeating the same basic policy as when it joined coalition governments with the Ba'athists.

Redstar, however, has argued all the workers' organizations and parties in Iraq are "quislings", including those who refuse to support either the occupation or the Ba'athist-Islamist resistance. If you don't support the Ba'athist-Islamist resistance, if you haven't been banned by the occupier...either proves you must be a quisling.

redstar2000

21st June 2005, 03:19

Originally posted by Severian
Fish! Mellifluous malabar mahogany. Aluminum siding?

Your clearest post yet! :D

Or did you copy & paste it from Leon? :lol:

Redstar, however, has argued all the workers' organizations and parties in Iraq are "quislings", including those who refuse to support either the occupation or the Ba'athist-Islamist resistance. If you don't support the Ba'athist-Islamist resistance, if you haven't been banned by the occupier...either proves you must be a quisling.

Not so good, this one.

To be banned/suppressed by the occupation forces is a reasonable sign of resistance; to be actively engaged in armed struggle against the occupation is pretty clear.

To denounce the occupation verbally and yet cooperate with it practically is pretty bad...especially if you say something like that as bad as the occupation is, the resistance is "worse". That pretty much says flat out that Iraqis are "too backward" to govern themselves and "need" American imperialism to "put things right".

To openly and publicly collaborate with the occupation is, of course, clear quisling-like behavior. If you (an Iraqi) simply can't find a branch of the resistance that you think worthy of support, your only honorable options are to organize a resistance force that meets your political criteria or go into exile.

Any Iraqi that calls for "peaceful struggle" at this point is just calling for surrender and permanent servility to U.S. imperialism.

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif

mo7amEd

22nd June 2005, 18:52

Originally posted by Man of the [email protected] 19 2005, 05:04 PM

A certain part of them would put guns on trucks and declare city like dictatorships, some based on power, others on fundumentalism Islam. A civil war would break out (I'm not saying Iraq shouldn't necessarily be broken three ways, but that's not been decided yet.)

This continued, "They're killing our families so we're going to blow up everything until they leave" is nothing like a Vietcong experience. It's pathetic.

If the vast majority sided with the insurgents (they don't, and you know it) then there would have been a boycott of the election, nor merely a Sunni protest over it.

Also, I DON'T CARE HOW MUCH FIRE POWER THE U.S. A. AND U.K. HAVE, IF 70% OF IRAQ WERE AGAINST THEM, THE WAR WOULD BE OVER TODAY. YOU CANNOT EXPLAIN THAT.
i stopped reading this thread when i read what u wrote about iraq being broken into three, and thats y i decided to post here...

first of all, the Iraqis who voted in the elections, did it coz they thought that would mean that the US would leave (which wasnt true), but yall need to know that only 58 percent of the iraqis voted. that is ofcourse more than the US but cmon, u cannot say its democracy if not atleast 70-80 percent of the people vote.

then iraq broken into three? y? u want to split a country that have been existing there in 5000 yrs? the first civilization ever. u think that sunnis and shiites does not come along but thats not true, they all have always seen themselves as ONE PEOPLE. its just extreme wahabbean that wants some kind of shiite killing, and those wahhabean has come from countries like syria, saudi arabia and so on, and very few iraqi sunnis support them. there is no civil war in iraq and there will never even be one (even though US wishes for that and tries to create one).

mo7amEd

22nd June 2005, 18:58

Originally posted by [email protected] 20 2005, 11:57 PM

Besides various nationalists and Islamists, there are also communists in the resistance.

Evidence? I seriously doubt that. The "Iraqi Patriotic Front" some people love to post statements from, is an exile propaganda front, created under the sponsorship of the Hussein regime before it fell. Based on its own statements.
ive also heard that they are ex-baathists, or baathist supported, but im not sure though... BUT still as u always require, i would like to se a reliable source that says that they are ex-baathists or baathist supporters