Talk:United States occupation of Fallujah

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the United States occupation of Fallujah article.
WPMILHIST This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
Related task forces...
 United States military history task force

This article is a daughter article of Fallujah which was spun off on November 14th 2005. The archived talk pages from Fallujah might be of interest; Talk:Fallujah/archive01 - to Nov 2004, #Talk:Fallujah/archive02 - to Nov 2005

Contents

[edit] New information, napalm

  1. http://rawstory.com/news/2005/U.S._Army_publication_confirms_United_States_1109.html
  2. http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article10907.htm
  3. http://www.dailykos.com/story/2005/11/9/164137/436

--Striver 19:54, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

White Phosphorus is not Napalm. It's a *totally* different substance, and bears little to no resemblance to napalm in deployment, use, or effects. MK 77 (still in use) is much closer to napalm than WP, which is how many folks seem to be confused. Ronabop 09:53, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] The white phosphorus debate

There's a new idea floating around that WP (White Phosphorus) is somehow an illegal chemical weapon. In the interest of somehow reducing possible edit wars, it should probably be noted that:

  • 1. WP used to light a battle area would not be illegal use of the substance.
  • 2. WP does not meet any of the conventional classifications of chemical weapons, as it is usually used as an incendary or lighting weapon.
  • 3. Use of WP, Napalm, or any other incendary device (or even bullets) intentionally against civilians is, indeed, considered a war crime.
  • 4. However, mere use of WP, explosives, etc. in a field of battle is not usually considered a war crime.
  • 5. Balancing that out, use of, say the chemical di-hydrogen monoxygen, or any other chemical, with *intent* to use chemistry in order to *damage a large number of troops through the effects of that chemical*, may be considered a war crime.
  • 6. However, this probably doesn't mean that di-hydrogen monoxygen should be banned from use in battle.

The "shake and bake" debate seems to focus on asserting that use of WP, in any context, would be a war crime, in an effort to criminalize any use of WP. Ronabop 09:53, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

John Stuart Blackton at TPM Café contributed to an interesting thread. Use of WP artillery rounds in Fallujah by the United States appears not to have been a war crime, as the U.S. is not a signatory to Protocol III of the Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons (1980). Interestingly, it is illegal for states that are signatories to Protocol III to use WP. Personally, I find the use of WP profoundly immoral, but that's not a matter for Wikipedia, is it? Billbrock 07:57, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

Billbrock: "Personally, I find the use of WP profoundly immoral, but that's not a matter for Wikipedia, is it?" Agreed. Just state the fact that WP is used, we shouldn't preach whether it is immoral or a war crime, unless we are quoting a source which says it is. We cannot add our own opinion. Any blatant opinion should be taken out of article.Travb 16:49, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] contradiction on this page

There seems to be some contradiction on this page. As it states Fallujah was the most peaceful city after the invasion (ie. 2003), but was also the most dangerous place before 2004. Can these both be right, or is there a mistake here?

Currently, it says 'Fallujah was one of the most peaceful areas of the country just after the fall of Saddam, and the arrival of US soldiers was received peacefully.' A lot apparently happened after that time, from reading the article. From my read, and recollection of the events, I think that both statements are correct. - Aaronwinborn 13:13, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
Well here's the inside scoop. When troops first arrived in Fallujah there was not much trouble. There was no "Fight for Fallujah" during the invasion. However, it became obvious very quickly that Fallujah would be a hostile place during the occupation. The first flair-up being the late April protest at the school house, followed by a protest a day later at the mayor's office where another 2 were killed, followed by an attack on the FOB Laurie that night, followed by... followed by... So US soldiers were received peacefully, but very shortly hostility began to grow. (Atfyfe 14:27, 17 March 2006 (UTC))

The way I remember it (note: just ONE soldiers POV) in June and July of 2003, when I get there, it was not too bad during the day. The MP's who had been there a little longer made references to bad parts of town "Ambush Ally" and other things of the like. Not a place to take a midnight stroll. The night, things were hotter, hence the enforced curfew. 3ID made a tremendous effort to appeal to the people, and in my opinion ( again, see discalimer above) they made good progress. I have a picture of myself, in the middle of town, with an Iraqi citizen, helmet off, both of us grinning like fools. The situation degraded slowly after that, accelerating after the 3ID departure. By the end of my tour, we avoided town unless required, bypassing it to get to other parts of the region. (al fallujah 14:19, 5 OCT 2006 (UTC))

[edit] is this propaganda?

Can anyone verify that the following was actually reported by an embedded journalist?

"# Some of the tactics said to be used by the insurgents included playing dead and attacking, surrendering and attacking, and rigging dead or wounded with bombs. In the November 13th incident mentioned above, the US Marine apparently believed the insurgent was playing dead."

[edit] Nicknames

I don't know how many nicknames different units had for Fallujah, but when I was there we use to call it "The Fluje". I don't really see where that would figure into the entry, so I thought I would just post it on the discussion page incase it ever finds a place in future revisions of the article. Most commonly we would call out to each other "F*ck the Fluje!" This is back in the summer of 2003.

[edit] Article title

The article title is technically incorrect down to the fact that the Iraqi government took power on July 30, 2004. The United Nations Security Council Resolution 1546 in 2004 recognized the end of the occupation and the assumption of full responsibility and authority by a fully sovereign and independent Interim Government of Iraq. Afterwards, the UN and individual nations established diplomatic relations with the Interim Government and began planning for elections and the writing of a new constitution.

Perhaps we should rename the article Battle of Fallujah, Fallujah campaign or Fallujah offensive? --James Bond 11:33, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

  • Keep as is. Operation Vigilant Resolve and Operation Phantom Fury exist. What has occured in Fallujah is more than a battle or offensive. Right now, this title is appropriate.--Looper5920 11:43, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
    There's probably ample room for merging somewhere within this set of articles—easy availabily of media coverage aside, most of the recent operations in Iraq really don't need their own articles—but it's probably not something that we'll really be able to figure out without the benefit of hindsight. As far as this particular article is concerned, it's somewhat distinct from the military operations; my only concern would be for the neutrality of the title. Kirill Lokshin 12:26, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Neutrality

These are changes I made to remove suggestive or leading language used.

I changed '...threw down uniforms and ran away.' to '...discarded uniforms and deserted.'

I also removed the comment that the limits placed on embedded journalists were 'to protect the troops.' I felt this comment suggested that this was the only reason journalists were limited in what they could report, which is a highly controversial point. I realise that just saying they were limited, as I have done, may be suggestive but it was the most neutral way to portray the limited nature of the following information without entering a discussion on embedded journalism. Isiod 06:05, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Grammar

I would suggest changing the tense of the article which seems dominated by present rather than past tense. e.g. 'have asked' > 'had asked'. Also the phrase 'a force of over 4,000+\- U.S. and 800+\- Iraqi troops', is slightly confusing (over or +/-, not both) and lacks a reference. Isiod 06:05, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Recent news

So, there's no coverage of the last twelve months in this article. Presumably the place is still being occupied, but I wouldn't know from this article. -LtNOWIS 09:27, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

If you haven't heard, Fullujah is now off limit to reporters. -ktchong 2 November 2006

Shouldn't that be mentioned? What about the use of mercenaries in Fallujah? -TydAmaNn58 November 28 06

I don't know why you would mention it about Fallujah, mercenaries are used all over Iraq. When I was there I saw more mercs than I saw members of other Coalition militaries. Secondly, who made Fallujah off limits to reporters? I would be surprised, but I might be wrong, if the U.S. disallowed reporters into Fallujah. If anything it seems more likely that news agencies wouldn't allow their reporters to go into the city. - Atfyfe 16:48, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Free Images

I've found some images of the Camp Fallujah base sign that are free, but I don't know if they would be useful in this article. Please look at them and you can upload them to WikiCommons (preferred) or let me know and I can do so. You can crop the images if only a portion would be useful:

--MECU≈talk 00:02, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../u/n/i/Talk%7EUnited_States_occupation_of_Fallujah_a4ac.html"