quote:In central Baghdad's Firdos Square, cheering and chanting Iraqis danced atop a toppled statue of Saddam, dragged off its massive stone base by U.S. Marines in a tank recovery vehicle.
The Iraqis broke the statue into pieces and dragged its head through the streets, while others -- including children -- pounded it with shoes, an act considered a supreme insult in the Arab world.
"We thought we were going to get a lot of resistance, but we never did, so we just kept pushing and pushing until we got here," said Cpl. Steven Harris with the Marines in the square.
quote:In the Baghdad suburb of Saddam City, residents took to the streets, celebrating the apparent end of the Iraqi regime. A Shiite Muslim leader told a group of 400 to 500 people, "The tyrant of the world is finished, thanks to the coalition. Thank God for Iraq the victorious."
quote:Dozens of people were seen hauling off furniture, fixtures and office supplies, using wheelbarrows and pickups, with no security forces to stop them. Others ripped down posters of Saddam and destroyed them -- kicking, punching and spitting on the pictures.
quote:Residents in the northern Iraqi city of Erbil spilled out onto the streets as well in passionate but less-raucous demonstrations, waving flags, tossing confetti and chanting.
At a briefing Wednesday at U.S. Central Command headquarters in Qatar, Brig. Gen. Vincent Brooks said coalition officials were somewhat concerned about the unrest but said they believe it will "settle down in due time."
"I think in this case we're seeing a lot of jubilation and people who have long been oppressed for years and years having choices," Brooks said.
Keeping tempo with that American BSD...
And trust the university crowd to still be in denial...
quote:Two miles away from the celebration in Firdos Square, a Marine column moving into Baghdad from the east came under heavy fire Wednesday afternoon at Baghdad University.
CNN Correspondent Martin Savidge, embedded with the 1st Marines, 7th Battalion, said the university campus was a battlefield at one point, with black smoke rising from several buildings and machine-gun fire ripping around the fighting vehicles. (Full story)
The firefight erupted, Savidge said, suddenly after a long stretch of road where Iraqis gathered on street corners to cheer on the Marines.
Posted by Shik (Member # 343) on :
Meanwhile, the 3rd Infantry Division laid claim to the harem room in Saddam's Presidential Palace. A military spokesman was quoted as saying, "Finders keepers, muthafucka."
Posted by Topher (Member # 71) on :
Mmm... Room full of hot Arabic women... Posted by Ritten (Member # 417) on :
Later this week Arab TV will have Minister Magoo stating that Baghdad is still under their control and that the Army did push a few units in to the city for hollow propaganda purposes, but they are being crushed even now....
Posted by Saltah'na (Member # 33) on :
Actually, the U.S. Marines showered in Saddam's palace.
Posted by MinutiaeMan (Member # 444) on :
Seeing the pictures of the Iraqis cheering in the streets is really making me think that we're actually doing something right, from the beginning. I was never really a subscriber of the French/German point of view that inspections had been dragging on almost indefinitely, though I still wish that more of an international consensus had been built before the invasion started. But now, I'm starting to think that that doesn't really matter as much -- the sights of Iraqis cheering as the statue topples, as the prisons are opened, how millions of lives are being brightened because of this. I think -- I hope -- it's worth it. I think we've done something good for a change.
I'm fully prepared to share a meal of crow, here and now. Figuratively speaking, that is.
I just hope that we can follow up on this and really free Iraq, rather than just remove one hated dictator and leave a power vacuum -- or worse, an ineffective new government.
Posted by Saltah'na (Member # 33) on :
I'll only figuratively eat crow if and only if the Americans find hard proof of Weapons of mass destruction. Not traces, but perhaps barrels would be nice.
Posted by Nim (Member # 205) on :
I don't know, a healthy, well-fed crow, lightly killed and prepared in a pot with mushrooms, onions, buillon and red wine. Would work, I think. :-)
Re: Harem, I think that's outdated. I've read many arab men mostly keep the women for babymaking and house chores and reserve the pleasure for other men. The men walk hand in hand down there with their friends, you know. Very cute.
Posted by Cartmaniac (Member # 256) on :
So, where are the WMDs?
Posted by Vogon Poet (Member # 393) on :
Give them a chance, they haven't had time to plant them convincingly yet.
Posted by Ritten (Member # 417) on :
A friend of mine went to Egypt for a Bright Star exercise while in the Army, and said that is what the Egyptian soldiers said, 'Women are for making babies, men are for pleasure.' One of the guys in his squad was the object of their desire, scared the crap out of the kid.
Posted by MinutiaeMan (Member # 444) on :
quote:Originally posted by Saltah'na: I'll only figuratively eat crow if and only if the Americans find hard proof of Weapons of mass destruction. Not traces, but perhaps barrels would be nice.
Well, that's actually what I'm saying. Looking at the reactions from the Iraqi people themselves, I'm not so sure that the WMDs are as important.
Sure, the global political ramifications are still important -- it'd be a hell of an embarrassment if Bush and his gang can't prove that Saddam had those weapons -- but as far as moral and humanitarian considerations go, I think it's still worth it.
That's what some of the pro-war advocates have been saying all along -- that we should go in simply because it's the right thing to do, to get rid of a brutal dictator, WMDs or no. That's why I expect to see First drop by to gloat shortly.
(Note: My acknowledgement of the apparent necessity of the invasion is not intended to convey support for the politics of the Bush administration, nor for his conduct in the international arena. I'm simply acknowledging that I think now that it's a good thing that we have gone in.)
Posted by Cartmaniac (Member # 256) on :
"That's what some of the pro-war advocates have been saying all along -- that we should go in simply because it's the right thing to do, to get rid of a brutal dictator, WMDs or no."
And the anti-war advocates have been countering this by arguing that if getting rid of a brutal dictator were the motive for invasion, the US should be gearing up for worldwide conflict. Morally right, what a crock.
It's interesting, though, how quickly the liberation of Iraq has made its people forget past deeds - I guess after being stabbed in the back thrice, they don't sense the injuries anymore.
Posted by MinutiaeMan (Member # 444) on :
quote:And the anti-war advocates have been countering this by arguing that if getting rid of a brutal dictator were the motive for invasion, the US should be gearing up for worldwide conflict. Morally right, what a crock.
Stop putting words into my mouth, please. I'm not saying that the political reasons are justified. I'm still convinced that at least part of the reason Bush and Cheney got focused on Iraq was because of the oil. I'm still of the opinion that it would have been better to get a consensus in the UN before attacking. I'm *not* saying that the US military should attack half the countries in the world because their leaders aren't nice people. I'm just saying that seeing the Iraqis celebrating makes this conflict seem worth it. I'm looking for the positive benefits.
As far as the WMDs are concerned... considering that the UN couldn't find them, and that Hussein's people had twelve years to shuffle them around, and that so far the majority of the "coalition" troops are still in combat and support operations, I expect it's going to take weeks or months before any truly solid evidence is found, analyzed, and announced. Personally, I'm convinced they're there and will be found.
Posted by BJ_O (Member # 858) on :
Get that crow ready. "Fertilizer" doesn't set off geiger counters.
Posted by Saltah'na (Member # 33) on :
"That's what some of the pro-war advocates have been saying all along -- that we should go in simply because it's the right thing to do, to get rid of a brutal dictator, WMDs or no."
Well, you could say that there is a "brutal dictator" who is "Anti-American" and "suppresses the rights of its citizens" through "harsh measures" in another country.
That country is Canada. Brutal Dictator: Jean Chretien, who is "not with" the Americans, but "against them". Anti-American: all those politicians calling Americans (especially GWB) Bastards. Suppressing the rights of its citizens: Anti-War protestors (aka Chretien's "thugs") scuffling with Pro-War demonstrators (aka "liberators") in Toronto. Harsh Measures: Anti-War protestors (aka Chretien's "thugs") burning the American Flag.
Invade away, boys. Now you see how easy it is to simply "remove" a leader you simply don't like.
[ April 11, 2003, 07:20 AM: Message edited by: Saltah'na ]
Posted by Mark Nguyen (Member # 469) on :
quote:Originally posted by Saltah'na: That country is Canada.
What, you Canadians got a guilty conscience or something? Last time I checked, there weren't widespread torture chambers, children being rounded up, armed fanatics roaming the streets watching every citizen for signs of disloyalty, or dozens of opulent palaces just for Jean Chretien...
Let me put it this way... the US is at least partially responsible for helping Hussein amass his power in the first place. Regardless of the motives, announced or otherwise, isn't it appropriate that we go in and clear him out? Again, I'm not suggesting that the US be the world's policeman -- that's not practical, and a lot of people out there wouldn't WANT us to do that anyway. However, in this specific case, in retrospect I think it's justified.
'Course, it's easy to say that after the Republican Guard has melted away and the Third Infantry Division made it to Baghdad in only three weeks. Posted by First of Two (Member # 16) on :
Plus, you've got oil. Don't give us any ideas.
Chretien? Brutal? Not even Americans would believe that. "Canadian" and "brutal" just don't belong in the same paragraph. The closest you folks come to "brutal" are your hockey players... the foreign ones.
Oh, and UM's wit. But that's it.
Posted by The_Tom (Member # 38) on :
Besides, why fear Canadians when traitorous Americans are about to corrupt baseball.
Posted by Saltah'na (Member # 33) on :
I'll put it to you this way, with no discovery of WMDs, the U.S.'s motives become suspect. So the U.S. would like to invade Iraq because there is a "brutal dictator" who is "Anti-American" and "suppresses the rights of its citizens" through "harsh measures" in his country.
Besides, a lot of Americans hate Canadians for not joining then in this war. A good portion of other Americans would like to see Canada as the 51st state. Did you know there is a book out that labels Jean Chretien as the Canadian Dictator?
Plus we have oil.
So any kooked president could make a case to invade Canada based on dubious means. Hey, if it applied in Iraq, then it could apply here.
[ April 11, 2003, 07:19 AM: Message edited by: Saltah'na ]
Posted by Sol System (Member # 30) on :
"Besides, a lot of Americans hate Canadians for not joining then in this war."
Of course they do.
Posted by The_Tom (Member # 38) on :
Unless the whole population of America = the panelists on Hardball or whatever similar filth FoxNews has, then I'm with Simon.
Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
I have to agree. A lot of Americans simply hate Canadians. It has nothing to do w/ recent events. It's been going on much longer than that.
Posted by Cartmaniac (Member # 256) on :
Since, oh, 1812.
Posted by Vogon Poet (Member # 393) on :
"Get that crow ready." Heh, that's a good one. Every time in the past three and a half weeks that a Coalition soldier has sneezed, let alone found a mysterious container in a cellar, you've immediately crowed about proof that Iraq had WMDs. Yet, here we are, those three and a half weeks later, and there's still no proof. Every rumour of WMD detection so far has proved to be false - something you've steadfastly ignored as you went on to trumpet the latest 'find.'
So. . . When we have a report of radioactive material found in a bombed Iraqi complex, only for it to emerge that the complex was a hospital, and they were in the X-Ray room, please don't hold back.
I seem to remember a study of the rise in background radiation due to the use of depleted-Uranium shells in the first Gulf War. Must locate that.
Posted by Veers (Member # 661) on :
Notice, too, that it's no longer called a disarmament...not by administration officials, by the people, or by the news. No, it's a liberation, because we conveinently named the operation "Iraqi Freedom." So, logically, the disarmament goal of this campaign is no more. I'm sure Bush and his cronies expected to find actual WMD, laid out perfectly on tables for our troops to find. Well, that hasn't happened, and because it hasn't, now it's a "liberation." And that's what 1441 said. If Iraq hasn't disarmed, then serious consequences will follow. Not, "if the inspectors find no WMD, but you say they are there, then you may go in and bomb as much as you like, even if you find out they do not have WMD anymore."
Posted by Nim (Member # 205) on :
How old are some of those soldiers they sent down there? 17? 18? They should've named it "Resolution 1337", oh the morale boost.
Posted by Daryus Aden (Member # 12) on :
Well they are (as Lee so poigniantly stated) yet to plant them convincingly.
Of course the fact that the whole premise of the war has so far turned out to be utter B.S. seems the be escaping the GOP (and its trained baboon). Nice media spin with the liberation thing. Very nice.
P.S.: They're currently trucking the WMD in from Israel, or somewhere. Maybe flying them in from Alabama.
By the way, here is my dog. Please, wag him.
Posted by Saltah'na (Member # 33) on :
quote:Originally posted by First of Two: Get that crow ready. "Fertilizer" doesn't set off geiger counters.
I have to ask: since when did Fertilizer qualify as a WMD?
Posted by Vogon Poet (Member # 393) on :
I think he was trying to say that while all previous chemical/biological "discoveries" have generally turned out to be fertiliser, the Geiger counters going off will mean there is evidence of a nuclear weapons porgramme. Never mind that a watch with a fucking luminous dial will set off a Geiger counter.
So all in all it's a shame the Middle East (including Iraq) is such a centre for the production of fake designer items, including watches. Gulf War 2 Syndrome will consist largely of US Marines deafened by the rattling of Geiger counters. 8)
Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
Regarding Nimrod's comment, it's unfortunate, but UN Security Council Resolution 1337 is just an uninteresting report on the condition of Lebanon.
Posted by Jay the Obscure (Member # 19) on :
Remember, Saddam was an immediate threat to the United States because not only did he have WMD's but he was ready and willing to use them against the United States.
A WMD strike against invading forces never happened.
Posted by Ritten (Member # 417) on :
There could be other circumstances we know nothing of for that, but hey, the common sense that a guy like SH would get rid of his gas is the main thing....
Some security lock key pads also set them off, as do the metal discs on smoke detectors, well, the older ones from the 80's anyway, I don't know about the newer ones.
Our WsMD are stored at Diago Garcia, so that they are with in easy shipping distance.
Posted by Omega (Member # 91) on :
And that's what 1441 said. If Iraq hasn't disarmed, then serious consequences will follow.
Which is exactly what happened. WMDs weren't the only things that qualified as forbidden weapons, you know.
Saddam was an immediate threat to the United States because...
Was the word "immediate" ever used? Just curious.
Posted by Veers (Member # 661) on :
Perhaps you mean Scuds? Is there proof actual Scud missiles have been fired at Kuwait, or are the missiles al-Samoud, and the reporters are just saying "scuds" because that has turned into a generic term for Iraqi missiles?
Posted by The_Tom (Member # 38) on :
If America was attacking Iraq in self defence, then I should hope they were an immediate threat. Otherwise, I dunno, it might make the Americans liars or something.
Posted by Omega (Member # 91) on :
Not all threats are immediate.
Posted by Jay the Obscure (Member # 19) on :
The ones that a country kills thousands of people over had better be. If not, that's why humanity invented diplomacy.
Posted by The_Tom (Member # 38) on :
International Law regards only wars of self-defence as legal. Implicit to that is being invaded or facing an immediate threat. Your administration has characterized the invasion of Iraq as the latter. I would disagree, and it would appear you do as well, Omega.
Posted by Ritten (Member # 417) on :
I would like to point out that sponsoring terrorists for attacks against the Western World does constitute an immediate threat. As, just before WWII, we've been condemned for our isolationism, meaning we did nothing while terrorists attacked the others, then, as New York is the modern Pearl Harbour, we got attacked and joined in. Only this time we are being condemned for having the balls to do something about it, only awaiting the terrorist to come flooding over the border from Canada. Mexico I would have aded, but that has had somewhat decent security for awhile now. And do not try to insinuate that Japan and Islamic attacks are different, they were both designed to make America not get involved. Another common thing is that they both failed. It is a simple fact that our governments policy is one of zero tolerance of governments that sponsor terrorism. Will I trade an Iraqi/Syrian/Iranian/North Korean/Libyan civilian for an American one, bet your ass I will, call it Nationalism, or whatever. The battles in two counties have left how many actual civilians dead? Something like 4,000+ in Iraq, if the Iraqis can be believed. I haven't heard any numbers from Afghanistan. Say 6,000 total, makes us pretty even, plus, we have eliminated two governments that have a whole list of things that they have done. From burtal treatment of their own people to harbouring and sponsoring terrorists. This is like the weapons ban argument. If you can find a better way to eliminate international terrorism than produce, otherwise, go to Lockerbie and think for a bit. Yes, the US helped out the lesser of the two evils in the Iraq/Iran war, when we should have invaded both of them back then....
Posted by The_Tom (Member # 38) on :
Careful. When you stack so much stupidity into one post it tends to topple over into neighboring ones. BUSH IS TEH NAZZI! TEH CANADAIANS INVADE @ DWAN!
Sorry, don't know what came over me there.
Posted by Omega (Member # 91) on :
The ones that a country kills thousands of people over had better be.
We killed thousands and saved tens of thousands. You pick.
BTW, anyone got a count on exactly how many of his own people Sadaam killed in a year, on average? Just curious.
International Law regards only wars of self-defence as legal.
Untrue. Mutual defence pacts ala NATO, the first Gulf war, the Korean war, and, coincidentally, any war undertaken under UN resolution 1441 are all examples of circumstances under which wars can be undertaken legally while not being fought in self-defense. And even if your statement were true, I would propose that it needed to be rethought due to exactly the circumstances that exist under the exceptions I listed.
Posted by MinutiaeMan (Member # 444) on :
quote:BTW, anyone got a count on exactly how many of his own people Sadaam killed in a year, on average? Just curious.
No idea about any remotely official average per-year, but I'm pretty sure that at least a couple of Saddam's chemical weapons attacks had casualty figures higher than in this current war...
Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
"BTW, anyone got a count on exactly how many of his own people Sadaam killed in a year, on average? Just curious."
Along w/ that, I'd like a count of how many of his own people Bush killed while he was in charge of Texas.
Posted by Wraith (Member # 779) on :
quote: I would like to point out that sponsoring terrorists for attacks against the Western World does constitute an immediate threat.
quote: It is a simple fact that our governments policy is one of zero tolerance of governments that sponsor terrorism
And yet American citizens have sponsored terrorism in Northern Ireland for, what, 30 odd years now? And there's been no repercussions forthem; does that mean it's ok for a private individual to sponsor terrorism?
quote:And do not try to insinuate that Japan and Islamic attacks are different, they were both designed to make America not get involved. Another common thing is that they both failed.
Uh... no, actually. The Pearl Harbour attck was designed to prevent the US joining in by eliminating the carrier force. The September 11th and other attcks by Islamist terrorists are designed to eliminate America.Remember, they believe that the US struck first with 'cultural imperialism' and what they see as oppression of Muslim countries.
Posted by Ritten (Member # 417) on :
The_Tom: I guess I am not done stacking 'stupidity' in this thread....
TSN: Convicted killers mostly, we do hope mistakes weren't made, compared to disagreeing with the dictator or being of a different religion. I see this as very comparable, indeed I do....
Wraith: Yes, preventing the invasion of ideas like being able to call your leader a fucking dink, without getting shot. If I recall reading or seeing a news report that said if the US would unconditionally convert to the Islamic religion all terrorist attacks would stop.
Does anyone have any memory of this report? I can't seem to find the dang thing.
Posted by Veers (Member # 661) on :
Ritten: This might be that article you refer to. It's actually one of those al-Qaeda threats, the one that said "expect us in New York and Washington." About half way down, under the "Related articles" box, there is a paragraph saying "the message ended with a call for Americans to convert to Islam."
Posted by Wraith (Member # 779) on :
quote: Wraith: Yes, preventing the invasion of ideas like being able to call your leader a fucking dink, without getting shot.
Can you do that in the US?
quote: If I recall reading or seeing a news report that said if the US would unconditionally convert to the Islamic religion all terrorist attacks would stop.
LOL. That's likely. i saw a post on some board or other from a Muslim saying that it would be better if we infidels allowed Muslims to be in charge as Islam had a place for us. The arrogance was almost as bad as certain Americans.
Posted by Ritten (Member # 417) on :
Veers, no, there was an older one that I am thinking of, that expressly said, convert and all will be well woith the world. Of course, the big war machines would be useless, as we'd all be running around blowing each other up with suicide bombers.
mmm, yes, I could call Bush a fucking dink, and, almost think he is, but he's starting to prove himself a capable individual. I'll see what he can do to help the economy, since I don't hold the Pres responsible to fix it. I don't like part of his plan, but heck, I'd be a yes man if I did.
Posted by Wraith (Member # 779) on :
...and one of the people exercising their right to free speach was (allegedly) doing so on behalf of our friends in Baghdad:
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)