Anniversary

[Walsingham]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/s...000/3502633.stm

 

I hadn't realised that this was going to be the anniversary of the day when that big Saddam statue fell live on TV. I was enthused enough to take the day off work, and settle in with the best wine I could find to watch the USMC roll into the city. Frankly I wasn't expecting it to be as bloodless as it was, with the marines rattling up to the international hotel seemingly oblivious to the danger of RPGs. Fortunately none were injured although they did come under 'sniper' fire briefly from the luxury apartments nearby (used by the Republican Guards and others).

 

The World news chose to show only the images of the marines taking down the statue with a crane. But watching for a couple of hours on the BBC I saw a different 'off message' story, where marines politely and eloquently explained to reporters that they were content to let the Iraqis, who had gathered despite the fighting, and shots fired on them, take it down themselves. Events conspired to take on a curious metaphorical quality as the Iraqis tried with their bare hands, shoes, and sticks to take down this heavily reinforced effigy of Saddam. After I guess half an hour the marines bowed to pressure from the crowd and gave them one of their sledgehammers. This was weilded with incandescent fury by a sequence of men, but it was stilll taking ages, and might have taken days. Then, as Rageh Omar, the BBC's man on the ground was interviewing a man in the crowd, the marines drove one of their special engineer vehicles up, and with the assistance of the crowd got a steel cable around the statue. It was all very much a joint effort, with the yanks only stepping in when the crowd demanded it.

 

Enter the unfortunate marine who scampered up the crane and put a US flag on the head of the statue. This was greeted with immediate disapproval by the other marines and the crowd, but the damage was done. World news agencies liked this image far more, and that is what hit the pages rather than the more repesentative image of collaboration, and certainly of Iraqi insistence. The moment went down as triumphalism, rather than a microcosm of the larger struggle by the Iraqi people against oppression. A struggle that was only resolved when the Coalition completed almost effortlessly with their men and machines what the Iraqi people wanted but couldn't achieve on their own.

 

Looking back on this moment I recall thinking "Why in the name of mercy didn't we do this ten years ago? Was it to _prevent_ this that a hundred thousand people marched on London?"

 

I also wonder if we have not allowed a perfectly reasonable dislike of GWB to obscure our betrayal of the that day of hope.

[SteveThaiBinh]

An Iraq thread! :ninja10:

 

Hmmm. If there was hope on that day, and if anyone's betrayed it, surely it's Messrs. Bush, Rumsfeld, Blair and co. who failed to put a proper post-invasion plan into action?

 

As I recall, the toppling of the statue was covered in a fair amount of depth by news organisations. The positive co-operation between the crowd and the US troops wasn't glossed over or ignored, but neither was the obvious negative reaction of Iraqis to seeing the US flag flying there.

 

The anniversary of the start of the war wasn't so long ago, and now with this one, the anniversary of Bush's speech announcing the cessation of major combat operations must be coming up soon. I'm particularly looking forward to that one.

[Sand]

The Iraqi Invasion cemented my views that Bush is an idiot. Only an idiot purposely fights a two front war. Only an idiot invades a country without a solid plan to get out of it. Only an idiot would think that he should "stay the course" when nearly everyone with a clue is saying get the **** out.

[roshan]

There is no such thing as a clearly defined frontline to terror. The USA must find it and destroy it wherever it exists.

[Sand]

The USA doesn't have that right to invade any country that might have terrorists and hate to break it to you Roshan, Saddam had no connections to Al Qaeda.

Edited April 10, 2007 by Sand

[Walsingham]

nearly everyone with a clue is saying get the **** out.

 

By 'with a clue', I assume you mean the editorial writers sitting thousands of miles away in a chair, rather than the soldiers coming back.

 

Steve, I thought you and I agreed that the incident was misrepresented, even if we disagree on the war itself. I could have sowrn that is what you expressed last time I brought this up. *shrugs* In respose t your point as to teh roots of the betrayal, I agree that insufficient work was done on a reconstruction plan. However, I also think there was a serious underestimation of the potential for ethnic clashes. However, I disagree that you have to be an idiot to have not noticed that the result would be so serious. I for one didn't expect the Iranians to manipualte the Iraqi Shias so cynically, or anticipated that disbanding the army would occur so soon, pushing thousands of trained Sunnis into unemployment.

 

I guess my main aspiration is to ask whether we ought not to set aside our differences, and try to make things work in Iraq, not for the Coalition, but for the damned Iraqis. We could also kee pin mind the way we have failed to follow through on our humanitarian assistance for Afghanistan. A country so denuded by war and despotism when we went in that you'd have been lucky to find a good solid building to pull over, let alone any statues.

[Sand]

Only the Iraqis can choose their path. We need to leave and let them.

[Volourn]

"The USA doesn't have that right to invade any country that might have terrorists and hate to break it to you Roshan, Saddam had no connections to Al Qaeda."

 

The USA, like any country, has the right to defend itself from any enemy.

 

As for the topic, taking down of the statue, the view of it was dependent of whjo you asked.

 

Iraqi: "Oh glorious day, Saddam is no more; but I was made when the Amerikan placed the US flag up there."

 

Non Iraqi Muslim/Arab: "Damn, dirty Amerikans! Oppression is a-ok as long as it's a Muslim/Arab oppressing another Muslim/Arab! Get off 'our' land!"

 

Amerikan: "Woo hoo! Our troops kicked butt!"

 

Non Coalition Member/Non Supporter: "Waaa! I was hoping, and expecting hundreds of thousands of Amerikan troops dyiung! That's all that perished! HAHAHA! Stupid arrogant Amerikan putting their flag on staute, and weakling iraqis needed help to pull statue down as a symbol of Amerikan dominance! HAHAHAHA! This will certainly lead to hunderds of thousands of Amerikan detahs!"

 

R00fles!

 

 

 

 

"Only the Iraqis can choose their path. We need to leave and let them."

 

Iraqis chose their path. They wnated , mostly, a life without Saddam Hussein mass murdeirng and oppressing them. They also choose to kill each over their religious believes.

Edited April 10, 2007 by Volourn

[metadigital]

Only the Iraqis can choose their path. We need to leave and let them.

Ah, the epitome of human empathy and a determination to stand up for the weak and oppressed, wherever they may be. Thomas Jefferson would be proud!

[Walsingham]

Only the Iraqis can choose their path. We need to leave and let them.

Ah, the epitome of human empathy and a determination to stand up for the weak and oppressed, wherever they may be. Thomas Jefferson would be proud!

 

Sir, on a day like this Thomas Jefferson would be drunk. And I for one intend to follow his example.

[metadigital]

He might be drowning sorrow at the attitude of the inheritors of his Great Civilization ...

[SteveThaiBinh]

Steve, I thought you and I agreed that the incident was misrepresented, even if we disagree on the war itself. I could have sowrn that is what you expressed last time I brought this up. *shrugs*

You made me go and search for my earlier post :sad: . It was like nearly two years ago - that's some memory, Wals! Fortunately I don't post about statues too much, so easy enough to find.

 

I said this:

My recollection of the radio broadcast was that they did repeat the comments of the intelligent and respectful marines, as well as descriptions of the flag incident. If one sticks in the mind more than the other, that only highlights what a blunder it was.

 

So I stick to my guns in saying that it was covered well in the media, though as I was in Viet Nam at the time, 'the media' to me meant the BBC World Service, Vietnamese State TV (don't ask) and the Guardian Weekly - perhaps not a sufficient sample from which to generalise, so for that I apologise. If you say the coverage was much more slanted elsewhere, I can't really disagree with you.

 

I guess my main aspiration is to ask whether we ought not to set aside our differences, and try to make things work in Iraq, not for the Coalition, but for the damned Iraqis. We could also kee pin mind the way we have failed to follow through on our humanitarian assistance for Afghanistan. A country so denuded by war and despotism when we went in that you'd have been lucky to find a good solid building to pull over, let alone any statues.

I wholeheartedly agree. That said, I think we did set aside our differences - I mean the pro- and anti-war lobby. The United Nations legitimized the 'occupation' of Iraq and even recognised the 'not much better than American puppets' Iraqi government of the time, with French and Russian support or at least without their vetoes, allowing the UN to go in there and start working. It was the poor security situation that forced the UN and NGOs out, not pettiness on the part of the anti-war lobby. Yes, perhaps other countries could and should have done more. I don't think they should have sent troops - why should they send their young men to die to clean up George Bush's mess? Helping with poverty alleviation, basic services and so on is a different matter, but the security situation is the problem here, I always thought.

 

I'd also make the point that many people are calling for troops to be withdrawn not because we're still fighting the battles of the past without regard to Iraq's welfare, but because when you here senior military figures make comments like this, it's hard to understand what we'll achieve by staying there any longer. While he may not have been advocating an immediate total withdrawal, the logic of his comments points in that direction.

 

Could not agree with you more about Afghanistan. Everyone supported the war in Afghanistan, everyone promised to help the recovery, and everyone let them down. It's stupid and short-sighted as well as selfish - another mess of a country ready to throw up problems for the whole world when we least expect it.

[Sand]

I had no problems with Afganistan. I supported the decision to go into Afganistan and get rid of Al Qaeda and the Taliban. I had no problem in helping that country rebuild after we outed the government and terrorist organization that actually attacked us. When Bush invaded Iraq, which I was against from the get go, he lost all respect and support I had for him.

 

Iraq had no WMDs. Saddam had no ties to Al Qaeda. The US invaded on false premises engineered by the Bush Adminstration. The Iraqis want us out of their country. The voters made it clear at the last November elections that they wanted out of Iraq. Bush still just doesn't get it and I do hope that Congress reins in Bush by cutting total funding from the war effort. It is time to let the Iraqis forge their own path and our troops to come home.

[Volourn]

"Iraq had no WMDs. Saddam had no ties to Al Qaeda."

 

This simply isn't true.

 

 

"The US invaded on false premises engineered by the Bush Adminstration."

 

Not really.

[Sand]

Okay, Volourn, where are the mystical disappearing WMDs that Saddam was suppose to have when we invaded Iraq? Since you seem to have all the answers here, where did they go? Our troops, trained to do such searches and inspections and the like, found nothing but it is obvious you know where they went. So where did all the WMDs that Saddam suppose to have had when we invaded? Where?

 

Also Saddam had no links to Al Qaeda. They were oppose to one another.

[Volourn]

Sure, he had links. Sure, they disagreed on certain things. But, to say Saddam had NO links whatsoever with AQ is just plain false.

 

As for WMD, we know Iraq had WMD. We know they sued them. We know they didn't destroy all of them as they were supposed to. Do I know where theya re? No, but then again, i've never been to Iraq to ask Saddam where he hid them.

 

We also know that Iraq had a history of thumbing their nose at UN resolutions over, and over again so just because theyw ere ordered to destroy the WMD doens't mean they didn't keep any, and most certainly had plans to recreate the program at the very minimum.

 

Saddam Hussein was thrown in the trash. That's a good thing; not a bad thing. And, Saddam being the ruler of Iraq was the REAL reason for the US attacking that country.

[Sand]

Disagreed on a few things?!?!? They were adversarial towards each other. Bin Ladin and Saddam hated each as much as both hated Bush.

 

The reason Bush gave to the US people to justify the invasion was Saddam had WMDs when we invaded. That was false. He then changed the tune that Saddam was in league with Al Qaeda, which was proven once again false. That is the bottomline, Volourn. The war was unjustified, plain and simple. Just becuase the Bush doesn't like a ruler of another country does not mean it gives him the right to invade it. Going by that idealogy we should be invading Iran and Venzuala pretty soon even though neither are a threat to the US.

Edited April 11, 2007 by Sand

[Volourn]

You are wrong. Simple as that. You've been reading too much of the fiction the media passes as 'news'.

Edited April 11, 2007 by Volourn

[Oerwinde]

And again Volourn disagrees just to be the guy who disagrees with everyone.

 

I'm not saying its a bad thing, its what makes him an interesting member of the community.

Edited April 11, 2007 by Oerwinde

[Sand]

Or that he is so gulliable that he bought Bush's lies hook, line, and sinker. Also, Volourn, I was against this war long before the media jumped in against Bush.

Edited April 11, 2007 by Sand

[Walsingham]

Steve, I've never met Gen. Dannat so I hesitate to pass judgement on his cahracter. But his comments, as reported appear indicative of a certain short-sightedness. Any precipitate withdrawal or handover during unrest will be interpreted by Islamofascism worldwide as a victory just as the withdrawal by the Soviets from Afghanistan was. It will be a shot in the arm for their morale, and signal to all regimes currently opposed to Islamofascism that the West hasn't the guts to stand by them. I don't think we are given enough credence to teh consequences of that event. Our existing demostrated lack of will has precipitated a rise in the number and scope of attacks in Morocco, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Thailand, and Egypt to name only a few.

 

What I would hope the general was talking about was the fact that a long term presence in Iraq is unwise. I would not disagree in the least. I do not, however, agree with you that the two things (immediate withdrawal and long term phase out a la the Balkans) are the same thing.

 

Sand, can you tell me where you got this notion that the people want the US and UK out immediately? I'll grant you there are mass protests, but the Iraqi prime-minister - elected in internationally approved democratic elections - keeps saying that we shoudl leave when he says so, not a moment before.

 

As for the WMD debate I'm rather tired and even bored of it. The lines are so well drawen in that debate we need hardly go over them again, but just to recap:

 

No WMD: Where are they then?

A: They could be hidden in Syria.

 

WMD: What happened to the thousands of tonnes of WMD noted by inspectors in the early nineties? Also, what were all those scientists skilled in chemical and biological warfare doing all those years?

A: Probably tipped into the sands of the desert.

[Sand]

Could be-s and probablies don't cut it when it comes to justifying an invasion another country, Walsh. There has to be a 100% certainty that country is a clear and present danger to the US, capable of attacking US citizens on US soil, to justify an invasion. That is why I had no problems when we invaded Afganistan. Al Qaeda and the Taliban government made an direct attack on the US. We should have focused on them til not a single member of Al Qaeda or Taliban was left alive. To use our Idiot President's words we should have "stayed the course" but we didn't. Al Qaeda is gaining strength, the Taliban is back, and what gains we have had in the region is eroding.

 

All because our Idiot President couldn't "stay the course."

[Walsingham]

Could be-s and probablies don't cut it when it comes to justifying an invasion another country, Walsh. There has to be a 100% certainty that country is a clear and present danger to the US, capable of attacking US citizens on US soil, to justify an invasion. That is why I had no problems when we invaded Afganistan. Al Qaeda and the Taliban government made an direct attack on the US. We should have focused on them til not a single member of Al Qaeda or Taliban was left alive. To use our Idiot President's words we should have "stayed the course" but we didn't. Al Qaeda is gaining strength, the Taliban is back, and what gains we have had in the region is eroding.

 

All because our Idiot President couldn't "stay the course."

 

What a remarkably bloodthirsty chap you are.

 

1. You do realise that your proposal would mean killing a lot of guys in Afghanistan who were at best footsoldiers in a game they had even less say in than understanding.

2. On whose say so do you accept that Al Qaeda and the Talibs were behind 9/11?

3. 100% certainties don't exist in my sock drawer, let alone in international espionage.

[Dark_Raven]

........

Edited April 11, 2007 by Dark_Raven

[Sand]

What a remarkably bloodthirsty chap you are.

Those who are proven to be our enemies deserve no less.

1. You do realise that your proposal would mean killing a lot of guys in Afghanistan who were at best footsoldiers in a game they had even less say in than understanding.

 

If they are aligned with our enemy then they should face the same fate. If they surrender we should accept such surrenders graciously.

 

2. On whose say so do you accept that Al Qaeda and the Talibs were behind 9/11?

 

Al Qaeda. They claimed responsibility and the Taliban backs Al Qaeda.

 

3. 100% certainties don't exist in my sock drawer, let alone in international espionage.

 

No, but if we are going to use a large amount of resources, then we need to make sure that those resources are well spent and the returns are worth it. So far Iraq has proven to be a failure.