Should the US assault Falluja? - Page 2




View Poll Results :Should the US assualt Falluja?
YES 18 75.00%
NO 3 12.50%
NOT SURE 3 12.50%
Voters: 24. You may not vote on this poll

 
--
 
November 6th, 2004  
Lupos
 
 
Egoz, I am not trying to sound obnoxious here, but do you not think that they have tried SF already. I mean think about it, SF operations are not likely to be publicised unless they go totally awry. We need to take this city or the whole war will be lost, guaranteed. Contrary to some overseas news I have heard from the news for the last 24 hours that 300,000 civilians have fled just in the last few days while insurgents have turned the city into a massive fortress armed with booby traps, mines, and a few machine gun nests. This has been one of the most problematic cities in the whole of Iraq, it needs to be invaded. They took Sammarra, Al Sadr gave up and the Mahdi Army disbanded, now they need Fallujah. Risks need to be taken, a sad fact of this war. The marines are willing and ready to go, so we need to go in. Good Luck to them, and may the insurgents meet their horrible ends there in the city they entrenched themselves in.
November 6th, 2004  
egoz
 
Well I'm sure SF has operated in the area. I was just trying to mention alternatives to reduce collateral damage in the area. But SF has proven to only be effective when going after individual and/or specific targets. So I guess I'm contradicting myself, but attacking a city would be left up to more conventional means. A perfect example of misusing large amounts of SF would be the Bay of Pigs. Some things are just meant for more conventional means.

The thing is we've invaded Fallujah, then pulled out, then invaded again. It's back and forth with them and someone needs to decide on a solid long term plan for the city instead of changing their mind every few months (politics). This assault wouldn't be necessary if the initial decision was to occupy the city and stop the rebels before they could build up. The problem with that decision though, is that the rebels are trained to attack for a certain amount of time, then wait and let the conventional forces settle in again before attacking. It keeps the military off balance. It forces the soldiers to always be on their toes and prepared. Which also makes the job much more stressful and problematic for befriending the locals. Which finally makes a large conventional military just want to retreat because it lowers morale and makes the situation seem impossible.

I believe the elections should take place with or without the city under control. It's only going to be a puppet government anyway. The country is in no way ready to accept any form of a government and forcing one into place with everything in chaos does nothing. It won't suddenly become more peaceful because they voted for a president. The Iraqi military can't even retain soldiers without them going back to fight for the rebels the next morning. So even with a President who is there to enforce laws? If we force any type of a government it should be another dictatorship that would be just as ruthless as Saddam. If that were to happen I bet no one would want to step out of line, just like before.
November 7th, 2004  
Duty Honor Country
 
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by egoz
Well I'm sure SF has operated in the area. I was just trying to mention alternatives to reduce collateral damage in the area. But SF has proven to only be effective when going after individual and/or specific targets. So I guess I'm contradicting myself, but attacking a city would be left up to more conventional means. A perfect example of misusing large amounts of SF would be the Bay of Pigs. Some things are just meant for more conventional means.
I agree that the SF is not suited to taking a city. Bad things tend to happen when SF units are used in a conventional roll. WWII showed that highly trained units do not perform well doing the job of conventional troops. Panama showed the US that it is bad to try to get SEAL Teams to work together. They were trained to be independent while conventional troops depend on other units.
--
November 8th, 2004  
silent driller
 
 
I'm quite positive we must give the order. I don't like it, but there it is. Gentlemen, I don't see how we can possibly do anything... but go.
-General Eisenhower in The Longest Day

Let's do it.
November 8th, 2004  
SAINT
 
Of course, no chance should be given to the enemies.

Soldiers are most happy to fight and defeat their enemies.. it's what they have been trained and waiting for.

November 8th, 2004  
Redleg
 
 
Looks like it's going to happen soon now:
http://www.military-quotes.com/forum...pic.php?t=6068
November 8th, 2004  
mdvaden
 
 
Well, hopefully it goes more delicate that in Seoul, Korea.

Wasn't that city practically leveled?

With 3 plus months of intelligence, wouldn't they have a fair grasp of how dense the enemy is in there?

Guess they can't tell in the news all that the US is aware of.

If nothing else, this can help the US to become even better in the future.

I certainly respect the commitment of the men and women that follown their orders in a sitution like this.

M. D. Vaden of Oregon
http://www.mdvaden.com
November 8th, 2004  
AussieNick
 
I believe they need to make an example of Fallujiah. They need to assault it, and despite losses drive out the insurgency and hold the city. If they back down they show they can be defeated. If they "Win" they will send a clear message.
November 8th, 2004  
Kirruth
 
 
Well, it looks like the assault on Fallujah has begun.

I wish I could say that I am praying for peace or concerned for the civilians, but the truth is my main thoughts and prayers are with the USMC in this fight.

There comes a time when evil cannot be placated, reasoned with or debated. It must be burned out. The enemy are people who torture and behead their captives, blow up schoolchildren and put the videos of their crimes onto the internet.

Kill them all. Hoorah.
November 8th, 2004  
Lupos
 
 
I second that.