Photo

These kids are quite happy....

Story

[ April 09, 2003, 02:57 PM: Message edited by: Tarkus ]

He dreams of waving his arms in jubilation.

"Ali Ismail Abbas, 12, wounded during an airstrike lies in a hospital bed in Baghdad on Sunday. Abbas was fast asleep when a missile obliterated his home and most of his family, leaving him orphaned, badly burned and blowing off both his arms."

[ April 10, 2003, 11:00 PM: Message edited by: twin58 ]

better that or to be put in the plastic shredder? tough choice.

I guess he's what you'd call a "lucky duck."

I guess the kids that are still alive, havent been decapitated, or still have most of their limbs are grateful for the invasion, I mean liberation.

The footage of the street celebrants with their arms full of furniture and appliances reminds me of the day the Rodney King jurors liberated South Central.

Instead of throwing flowers at the troops they'll be tossing stolen toasters.

Wow, I don't get some of you guys. The Iraqis are "jubilant", "celebrating in the streets", shouting "This is freedom" and "We are Americans" and "Thank you Mr. Bush." These quotes do not come from Fox News, they come from all media outlets. Two days ago these Iraqis would have been shot dead or hung by Saddam's forces for doing this. It's totally asinine to compare the current looting to the riots in South Central L.A. Most of the looting is being done at government buildings. The furniture and appliances were bought for government offices instead of that money being used to buy food and medicine for Iraqis in need. Um, did you notice the pictures of the gold-plated toilet fixtures and the marble floors in Saddam's palaces and hideouts? Those things should also belong to the Iraqui people now.

The civilian casualties and injuries are sad and tragic, but would you rather have these people live under the tyranny and suppresion of the past, when they could be killed or imprisoned for expressing themselves? They are free now, and they are happy about it. Some of you need to learn how to be happy for them. Don't bother to comeback with some pithy comment about me being happy for the boy with his arms blown off; I'm sad about that. Be happy for the people that won't be killed or tortured under Saddam's regime. Be happy for the imprisoned boys that are now free! Is that so hard?

From the AP:
BAGHDAD, Iraq — Youths bounced new tires down the street, a pickup truck spun away with an air conditioner in the back. In a free-for-all Wednesday, Iraqis in Baghdad pillaged offices of the government that ruled them for decades, making away with refrigerators, mattresses, telephones, even doors. [Empahsis added by me]

With the regime's feared security forces nowhere to be seen, Iraqis also dared cheer U.S. troops and attack the symbols of Saddam Hussein' rule.

In front of the Oil Ministry, a man clambered up a statue of Saddam, sat on its shoulder and bashed its head with a stone slab. Others beat it with their shoes.

They danced in the streets, waving rifles, palm fronds and flags, and defaced posters of the longtime Iraqi president — acts that would have been unthinkable days or weeks before.

American troops moving through the Iraqi capital — at one point, running an armored column through a main square — drew instant crowds.

One unit was swarmed by cheering Iraqis, with women lifting their babies for the soldiers to kiss. Young men shouted, "Bush No. 1, Bush No. 1."

-----

Okay, so it's not "hugs and rose petals" as some of you have so wittily noted in other threads. No, it's just kisses and palm fronds.

Not to cavil, MA, but not "ALL media [p]outlets." The BBC, known less for its accurate reporting these days than for its opposition to the war broadcast NONE of the scenes of the toppling of the statue, covering instead an earthquake in India. A quick check of local PBS stations shows only kids shows. I find that rather pithy.

It's not hard to be happy if you're happy yourself. Me? I'm downright jubilant!

\"Most\" is what some previously unreliable media outlets are saying; Thomas Friedman says in his NYT column today that *grain silos and schools* have been looted in Umm Qasr, and that the hospital is a desperate, Hobbesian place, with people diving for food tossed from vehicles...

Some of the jubilation is sincere I'm sure, but \"Bush #1\"is also just the sensible thing to say today, just like \"Yay Saddam\" was a week ago. It depends who's holding the guns around you. (BTW, apparently a US soldier has been televised scrawling \"GAY\" on a statue of Saddam in Baghdad...)

I think it's not for us to determine the circumstances of that change, especially when it comes at the price of many thousands of deaths.

That is an *extremely* premature thing to say, one that will not be determined for perhaps 5 to 10 years. What we have now is an authoritarian regime replaced by anarchy, under the far-from-complete "control" of soldiers who are not trained or equipped to act as a police force; civilian casualties dramatically increasing since the US entry into Baghdad; humanitarian agencies as yet unable to move into areas in peril of starvation; and the Red Cross halting its work in the capital because of the danger.

So excuse us who are skeptical of the unalloyed party image being exploited right now... Especially when it appears Paul Wolfowitz's embezzling pet Ahmed Chalabi may be part of an interim government ...

Let's take a page from Yogi Berra, and observe a lot by watching.

[ April 09, 2003, 09:14 AM: Message edited by: Bill W ]

Hey gmg - Good to see you, I though you and William were over in Iraq doing some liberatin'!!
wink

Please don't quote the whole thing, just a tiny bit or just the name; we get what you're replying to. Thanks, Tarkus

[ April 09, 2003, 03:01 PM: Message edited by: Tarkus ]

Speaking of liberatin':

\"Get Fuzzy\" comic strip from Monday.

I love Get Fuzzy. If you're not familiar with it, Bucky the cat lives with his owner Rob and a dog named Satchel, next to the owners of Bucky's nemesis, a ferret named Fungo... And yes, Bucky and Satchel are named after Buck O'Neil and Satchel Paige.

A few of the "liberatees" unable to dance today.
Photo

[ April 09, 2003, 03:03 PM: Message edited by: Tarkus ]

Oh bill bill bill now that the people are actually happy it's because we are holding guns to their heads? sorry there kid, but the US Tanks are pulling down statues of Saddam not holding guns to their heads.... Very funny how you can spin the fact that the Iraqi people are celebrating. People are in need of food and medical supplies? Well then i encourage anyone loyal to saddam to surrender so that supplies can be put in there and stop the suffering.

Face facts, as these cities are taken over and the poeple are free to see that they will not be harmed for showing their feelings, they celebrate. If you try to spin that into anything other than it is, you are pathetic. It's ok to admit that you are wrong...

Razor, the gold plated fitures... i thought you were the only one with them??????????

PhillyFan ... be gentle. A whole lot of people's entire world views right now are being upended and destroyed (like some socialist realism statute of Saddam himself). And I'm not referring to the Saddamized Saddamites, either.

My politics were fairly liberal until the late 80's when the Berlin Wall fell and the Evil Soviet Empire crumbled. I saw then that the left-wing conventional wisdom that I had bought into was based on lies and anti-American propaganda. And that led me to question (and reject) the full range of left-wing conventional wisdom.

Anyone with even a semblance of an open mind should learn from the street scenes in Baghdad and Basra.

they say a picture is worth a thousand words...

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?g=events/...&l=1&e=64&a=&t=

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?g=events/...ns=&l=1&e=61&t=

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?g=events/...ns=&l=1&e=59&t=

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?g=events/...ns=&l=1&e=35&t=

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?g=events/...ns=&l=1&e=30&t=

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?g=events/...ns=&l=1&e=22&t=

Two thousand more words:

http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB82/press.htm

http://reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=...storyID=2535375

my pictures are better razor.

Uh-oh the national security archives at GWU. Now you've opened Pandora's box. You're not supposed to see what's inside that.

To pull that out, it's a VERY VERY bad day to be a liberal...... the war is going badly i hear.

Move along folks, nothing to see here, just keeping waving your flags.

I agree. It's one thing to say that you oppose unilateral waging of wars. But the joys of the celebrating iraqis is undeniable.

You can say what you want about the iraqis being forced to do this or that. But the look of pure joy and happiness on their face is not one that can be staged.

Should I direct you to some photos of people in Iraq who arent really joyful or happy?

I dont think the little boy who was "disarmed" is jumping for joy today.

Yeah, yeah, I know thats just "colateral damage" right?

I think it is great, IF the Iraqis really are happy now that the Saddam Hussein era looks to be over. However, it would have been much better for all Iraqis if the Saddam Hussein era had never existed at all, and it would not have, or would have been much shorter, had the US not propped this tyrant up for years. So you'll have to excuse me if I have not jumped on the "liberation" bandwagon. Given our sorry recent history in Afghanistan, I don't know that the Iraqi people should be celebrating, we could still screw up the country.

More importantly it is simply disingenuous for any American to be acting like we are a wonderful country for invading Iraq. We used Saddam Hussein when it was conventient, abandoned the country when it wasn't useful, and invaded it when it became useful again. This is not a stellar foreign policy success. If this country is not willing to own up to its mistakes, and vow not to prop tyrants up any more, then we have no right gloating over a "victory" against a monster we helped create.

[ April 09, 2003, 03:05 PM: Message edited by: Tarkus ]

You should know me better than to think I'll simply dismiss that as "collateral damage"

But your pointing out the armless boy does not in any way detract from the fact that the majority of Iraq rejoices at the fall of Hussein.

another angle......
When Ceaucescu fell from power in Romania, there were those who did not want his reign to end. When the Khmer Rouge and Pol Pot were ousted from power, there were those wishing to continue the reign of terror. When the dictatorship in North Korea ends (and my aunts and cousins are finally freed) there will be those who wish for the days when they still held power.

But just because liberation from oppression is not shared by absolutely 100% of the populace does not mean that the country as a whole is not embracing freedom.

[ April 09, 2003, 03:24 PM: Message edited by: ung ]

To those who say we created the monster, Saddam Hussein..... you are correct. But just because we propped him up and gave him material support for years doe snot mean we can not topple him.

If anything, because of our involvement, it is even mnore incumbent upon us to right the wrong that we did. Meaning..... we had an obligation to rid the world and Iraq of this monster we helped create.

OH HELL, if the Iraqi's had a parade with 3 million people standing there, you'd still complain. Say what you wish about who propped up who... when and where.. the fact is in the 80's there was no way to tell what sadaaaaam would do or become. It's quite easy to monday morning QB now isnt it?

What we did with Afganistan... well if that is a failure, that more than solidifys (SP?) the fact that we should NOT allow the UN to come in. I could be wrong but didnt they beg and demand they be a large contingent in the rebuilding of afganistan?

Some of ya'all complained that we needed more diplomacy to go in... we went in and america supported it.. so you were wrong.

Then they stand down for a day or 2 and wait for the supply chain to catch up.. that was a failure. Then there would be mass casualties in getting the capital.. that didnt happen. I can go on and on with the doomsdayers i've seen, but the fact is once sadaaaaaaaam and his little killers are out of the way... the people are showing what they really thought of them. So, all the little nay sayers and anti-war folks, step aside and let the people who believed in the cause celebrate along with all the Iraqis (who you said would never welcome us).

[ April 09, 2003, 03:06 PM: Message edited by: Tarkus ]

It isn't over, but I have to say, that was a remarkable scene (and I don't think, as a friend suggested, that it was staged by the troops and Iraqi exiles, but that it WAS REAL). Very dramatic, stunning, the only way I can view it.

GMG, the BBC had a reporter on the radio who was literally hysterical, screaming with delight and awe as the American tank and the frenzied Iraqis tore down Saddam's statue. He narrated the whole thing step by step. Maybe they didn't put it on TV, but it surely was on the radio. I was quite moved by just what I heard, and I sincerely hope that once the U.S. has secured the country (that is, finally taken Nasiriyah, Hillah, the northern areas, etc.) and recovered Saddam's dead body or his evil live ass, along with his henchmen (where is Tariq Aziz???), we will turn the administration of the country over to the Iraqi coalition AND GET OUT OF THERE!!! No war with Syria, no war with Iran, just GET OUT OF THERE!!! Screw Wolfowitz and his plans, we got rid of Saddam and gave the people back their country, Israel's main threat is gone, Iran knows now we could crush them, so rather than stir up hornet's nest of hatred and empower that cunning Osama, let's just get out of there.

The Iraqi people, at least, will be free so we can concentrate on US. Then W. can answer questions about his lies about the WMDs and deal with the failed economy and domestic issues HERE.

I agree with PHILLY FAN - Its a great day for the Iraqi people.I Don't understand why some people have to tear down the good things that are happening. Oh yeah, I forgot - NO MATTER what Pres. Bush does even if it is something that Clinton himself may have done or favored it won't be right or good enough. Oh well - you can't keep everyone happy I guess.

[ April 09, 2003, 01:46 PM: Message edited by: copman ]

LOL let's throw the economy into the picture. Dont you have a free speach, anti war rally to go to while some of us watch the iraqi people celebrate?

\"Rose petals fluttered down from rooftops, flowers were thrown onto tanks and women dressed in traditional black held up bemused babies to see the soldiers.\"

Yes, rose petals!

Fantomas, I absolutely agree with most of your last post. I've been a supporter of this war effort, but I'm no fool and I know that the U.S. is not a welcome presence in the Arab world. Our rose-petal welcome will be short-lived. We have to be out of the business of running Iraq as soon as possible without leaving it unstable. Once the euphoria of victory dies down, GWB must focus on the economy and domestic issues if he wants to be re-elected, and he must re-focus on Al Quaeda and the Taliban, and that other war. I don't think the majority of Americans are interested in questioning the administration on "lies about WMD" as you said.

[ April 09, 2003, 02:11 PM: Message edited by: maxallen ]

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,83704,00.html

sounds like some people actually believed the Iraqi propaganda????????????? amazing.

Y'know. Repeating a lie over and over again does not turn it into the truth. The Syrian and Iraqi Ba'athist parties were a product of the Vichy France government. Vichy. The occupied French puppet government. That's why the Ba'athists in those countries are obviously direct lineal descendants of Nazi Germany. They're fascists, right down to the cult of personality and anti-Semitism.

The leading arms suppliers to Iraq have been the Soviet Union (Russia) and France. The U.S. is far down the list of countries that supported the Hussein government. Yeah, Jimmy Carter and Ronald Reagan briefly supported Iraq in its war with Iran -- Carter and Zbigniew Brzezinksi may have even encouraged the launching of that War, the evidence is mixed -- but Saddam had been in power for quite some time then (and not installed by the U.S. or the C.I.A.) We have not been supporting him for some time -- you are obviously confusing the U.S. with France.

Sorry to drop a bunker-buster on your well-constructed, factually-impenetrable world view, but those are the facts. Look 'em up.

[ April 09, 2003, 02:29 PM: Message edited by: Charlie in the Trees ]

I do think the joy in Iraq is genuine. But we have a big challenge ahead of us. Iraq is rather unique in the Arab world in that it has tremendous natural resources, the economic wherewithal to import what it doesn't have, and a populace that is somewhat more educated and secular than most other Arab countries. The challenge will be maintaining order and building foundations for the future so that in 18 to 24 months there can be a true free and democratic election that will hopefully a) elect a secular government that is not virulently anti-West; and serve as a model for other Arab countries. I do believe we're up to the challenge, and I do believe we have people in Washington who realize the Arab world will be watching and that much is riding on how we conduct ourselves and the decisions we make. As for the terrible photos of injured civilans, I don't think anyone can be unmoved by them. But when folks focus on that to the exclusion of everything else it's clear that it's their own political agenda, rather than any higher ethical or moral calling, that's driving the focus.

[ April 09, 2003, 02:36 PM: Message edited by: Munson Man ]

Im wondering if that was a real Saddam statue that came down or just a statue double.

DUH it was a double sadaaaam aint that big in real life!

Most of my thoughts on todays developments have already been expressed very nicely by you guys, but here's some of my thoughts anyway. Yes, it truly was an awesome sight in Baghdad today! It reminds me of the fall of communisim in Eastern Europe, watching the red gov'ts fall like dominoes. However, this war is not over yet, let's hope "we" can get out of Iraq as soon as it is possible, and let the Iraqi people take control of their country again. I truly hope that democracy can exist in Iraq. It would be nice if this was the seed of democracy in that part of the world. Maybe I'm being naive about having more Arab democracies, but I think it would be wrong to not hope for this. Just because a country is democratic doesn't mean that they are friendly to the West, but I think it helps. Actually, I think Iran may be the next Arab country to go democratic. They do not have the money (oil supplies) like Iraq, but most of their people are highly educated. Back when the Shaaw(sp?) was in power Iran was quite "advanced" and friedly to the West, so the people there know how it was before Khumani. Finally, shame on all the bogus people who viewed this war as simply a "political" thing. (YES, everyone is entitled to free speech but many of the "anti-war" people used this simply as a reason to bash Bush) Each day that Saddam was in power was just one more day millions of our fellow humans beings were kept in a living hell. Cheers to the Iraqi people, and their hope for a "free" and prosperous future!

Where do you come up with this revisionism??? Iraq had a puppet KING FAISAL II (the grandson of the king appointed by the BRITISH after World War I) who was a member of the family that now rules Jordan, the Hashemites, UNTIL 1958, CITT, when a military coup by Qasim seized power in Iraq! The Vichy Government in France fell in 1945. The Baathist Party may have gotten material support from Vichy France at its origin, but the Soviets (linked closely to the militarist, secularist, pan-Arab Nasser) and then JFK helped the Baathists in their takeover of Iraq in 1962-3, and again in 1968.

Moreover, as the image of Donald Rumsfeld (the secretary of defense under GERALD RUDOLPH FORD and special ENVOY UNDER RONALD REAGAN) shaking Saddam's hand demonstrates, the U.S. has provided direct and covert support to this man up through the early Clinton administration years. Reagan supported Saddam in 1980, then backed off in 1981, then turned on the spigots (thus Rumsfeld) in 1984 when it appeared that Iran might win. From 1986-1988, the U.S. supported both the Butcher of Baghdad and the wackos in Iran.

Blaming Jimmy Carter for the Reagan administration's open policy of supporting Saddam in his war against Iran is just mad. Reagan's support of Saddam was an obvious payback to the mullahs there for overthrowing our beloved friend, the nationalist Shah--yes, Mohammed Reza Pahlavi had his brutal side too and opposed the growing Islamicization, and made sure that his family--the Pahlavis, the Farman-Farmaians, etc.--got the best oil concessions, land concessions, you name it. (He was also quite liberal in terms of some of his legislation, a la Nixon.) George H. W. Bush as VP openly pushed for giving Saddam material support (just as he was a supporter of the Shah while head of Ford's CIA, 1975-77), and then was on record for helping to provide covert support for Iran.

So even as we celebrate the overthrow of this monster and his apparatus, we should not take a revisionist, gimlet eye to what the U.S.'s role was and has been. NOW we can do the right thing, support democracy there, not allow another Saddamish type to seize control, and also not allow the country to descend into the internecine warfare its known in the past, which Saddam cruelly suppressed through conventional arms, chemical and bio weapons the U.S., France, GERMANY (yes, they are part of this too), Bulgaria (one of his largest creditors), Turkey, and Russia, among others, supplied him.

[ April 09, 2003, 07:19 PM: Message edited by: fantomas ]

First, the Iranians are NOT Arabs. This is basic Middle East geneology, but the Iranians are Indo-European people (Persians) who share a RELIGION, but not direct bloodlines, with many (but not all of the) Arabs. Some Arabs, like the Lebanese Maronites, are Christian.

The Iranians are more closely related to the people of Pakistan and northern India (Indo-Aryans), Russia (Slavs), Greeks, etc. Iran is a MUSLIM country, though.

Second, the Shah was very pro-Western, too much so, and despite his White Revolution (I think that's what it was called) and avowed nationalism failed to take into account the popular, pro-Islamic, democratic feeling of the country, which is now dooming the mullahs. It's unlikely that Iranians would countenance the return of the Pahlavi family, but it's also the case that the mullahs are going to have to cede power soon, because the reformists are really the governmental expression of the popular will.

[ April 09, 2003, 07:18 PM: Message edited by: fantomas ]

Also, Iran is the world's 4th largest oil producer, though its reserves are estimated as slightly less than Iraq's (ranking "only" 6th in the world).

[quote]gmginsfo:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by maxallen:
[qb] The BBC, known less for its accurate reporting these days than for its opposition to the war broadcast NONE of the scenes of the toppling of the statue, covering instead an earthquake in India.[/quote]"BBC World" certainly showed the footage on tonight's broadcast. You must have been watching an earlier edition.

[ April 09, 2003, 07:47 PM: Message edited by: twin58 ]

Personally, I am not going to jump on any bandwagon now and argue that the ends justify the means. The Iraqi people may be happy a tyrant has fallen, but that does not justify our incursion into a soverign state's business (a state, I might add, that has NEVER attacked the US, and whose possesion of Weapons of Mass Destruction still has not been proven). There are many tyrants out there hated by their people (North Korea and Burma/Mynmar come to mind), but that would not justify our invasions of those countries either.

When Clinton was engaging in certain military exercises during his term, didn't we hear over and over from conservatives that the US cannot be the world's policeman. If we are now to justify militarly actions by the "freeing of oppressed people" then we are doing just that.

Perhaps I could have supported this war if there had been 1) a consistent and 2) a truthful rationale for having it. As it is the administration changed its mind so much they are not even clear why we are there or why we went to war in the first place.

I said back in '91 that we should have owned up to our mistakes (including sending the US ambassador to Hussein in the summer of '90 to let him know we wouldn't do anything if he invaded Kuwait) and simply attacked Hussein because we were partly responsible for keeping him in power, and we had a responsibility to take him out. But we didn't - we went to war to "liberate" Kuwait, a country that still does not let women vote. And in the end we allowed Saddam to stay in power, and I have to believe that was at least partly because he was thought to still be a good counterweight to Iran. We didn't care about the Iraqi people then, so we can't pretend to be great liberators now.

US foreign policy over the last hundred years has included support for different tyrants that we thought could be beneficial to our national interests. We have rarely cared about the people's oppressed by these tyrants. We have also spent a lot of time and money trying to topple governments, some of which were duly elected, because they were against our national interests, often replacing them with tyrants who liked us.

I simply wish we could be honest about it and learn from our mistakes. Instead we get 1984-like double speak from the administration that ignores our past. And I have to believe it is because we want to continue to ignore human rights violations when it suits us and use them as justification when it's convenient.

If this administration really wants to radically shift foreign policy and use human rights violations to judge other countries, I am all for it - but that means Egypt, Saudi Arabia and a lot of other "allies" would have to go. I don't think that's going to happen, so I'll remain cynical about this administration and its actions.

Really sucks to be an american now doesnt it?

Now if you are accusing the republicans of playing political games... do you really want me to re-post the comments of the democrats just 4 short years ago?

Clinton did a great job by going into Kosovo.. and he also did a GREAT job of blowing up that asprin factory to divert attention from his impeachment... oops i mean he laid down the law to saddam.

no, it sucks to be a bush toady.

Did you say suck? ummm the only sucking that went on was in the oval office during the last administration... that's well documented.

'twas a good suck.

no one give a good bj like a fat chic...

... by Ross Perot? wink

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,83711,00.html

bump some cavuto.