View Full Version : Why can't we control Iraq?
Apogee
10-26-2003, 07:13 PM
It might just be me, but it seems like we are unable to do something that Sadam did very well. Control the Iraqi people. Now I know it may be because we use much less bruatal tactics, but we never really saw the armed response to Sadam that we are seeing now (minus the Kurds). I just wanted to hear everyone's thoughts on this.
Thanks
Argyll
10-26-2003, 07:21 PM
Probably because there's a minority that does not want to be controlled by the US or any other Western Country,and as long as you have these ,you will never have 100% control!!
NcDeuce
10-26-2003, 07:23 PM
Media, media, media.
Vance
10-26-2003, 07:24 PM
There's always that one small minority that rebels against a cause. It's happening in more places than Iraq.
Gordon
10-26-2003, 07:26 PM
Media, media, media.
What do you mean: That we do in fact control Iraq already and the media are telling us otherwise? I'm sorry I don't really understand what you're implying.
Argyll
10-26-2003, 07:27 PM
Thats right it was CNN that fired these rockets into the Hotel!! :cantbeli:
All the suicide bombers work for the NBC
Try the fact that you still ain't got Saddam,and it ain't the media that causing the KIA's
NcDeuce
10-26-2003, 07:29 PM
The country of Iraq is unstable now. It was pretty unstable before. But now, with all the media honing in on that area trying to cover all the events happening, you get a lot more coverage of the unstability.
NcDeuce
10-26-2003, 07:32 PM
media that causing the KIA's
No, I did not say that.
However, this brings up a good point: think back to the start of the invasion. Anyone with a computer or television could flip on the news and see where all of our troops were and which units were going where. I didn't like how the media handled it.
Gordon
10-26-2003, 07:32 PM
The country of Iraq is unstable now. It was pretty unstable before. But now, with all the media honing in on that area trying to cover all the events happening, you get a lot more coverage of the unstability.
Before when?
Unstable in what way? ... if the population were unstable and it was the verge of a revolution etc ... then the coalition would have been able to let the Iraqis do it themselves. As far as I know Iraq was a pretty stable, albeit downright nasty place to live under Saddam.
ßå$tĮТHÏ¿ð
10-26-2003, 07:32 PM
First of all people in the middle east dont hold americans in high regard. There are plenty of people who fight americans because they are americans not because they are loyal to saddam or talibani or al-queda. Some are, but majority are not. There is no way to "control" the iraqi people. They will eventually have to take more responsibilty for there country and stand up to the ones trying to de-stabilize it. The minute the iraqi's realise that the better there country will be.
NcDeuce
10-26-2003, 07:35 PM
Unstable in what way?
Living under a tyrant who likes to wipe out mass populations of Kurds in his free time sounds unstable to me.
Argyll
10-26-2003, 07:38 PM
I aslo thought it was a stupid move to have the media inbedded with any unit,This must've come from the very top,as to why,god only knows,did it work,was it productive...........all it did was give the gung ho kids hard ons watching the country get blown to bits,and the very infrastrucure ripped apart,where the whole war looked like a movie!!
It always gets worse before it gets better............so they say
Time is also a great healer...........so they say
but
Time and Tide stand for no man as well..........fact!!
ßå$tĮТHÏ¿ð
10-26-2003, 07:49 PM
"Living under a tyrant who likes to wipe out mass populations of Kurds in his free time sounds unstable to me."
True it does, saddam had the iraqi's living in fear of secret police and executions. Ironically he had alot more control of the population then we were led to believe. Theres no official way to "control" iraq. Its like me in canada trying to control you taking a piss in britian...not happening.
Living under a tyrant who likes to wipe out mass populations of Kurds in his free time sounds unstable to me.
State-Stability 101
Dictatures (is that a word in english..--> countries run by dictators) are always WAY more stable than democratic countries. This is a fact...this is also the reason the US often installed them; they were stable... the US also found out that once those dictators got a pain in the ass, they were hard to remove (stable) unlike democratic leaderships, that were always easy to be toppled...i suppose someone more educated than me could go into the details and the 'whys'
Fioraon
10-26-2003, 08:12 PM
With this logic...
Why cant the US Control New York?
Why cant the US Control LA?
Why cant the US Control (Insert Cities With High Crime Rate)
ßå$tĮТHÏ¿ð
10-26-2003, 08:31 PM
You can only control those who want to be controlled.
Beloved Shiv
10-26-2003, 08:43 PM
It might just be me, but it seems like we are unable to do something that Sadam did very well. Control the Iraqi people. Now I know it may be because we use much less bruatal tactics, but we never really saw the armed response to Sadam that we are seeing now (minus the Kurds). I just wanted to hear everyone's thoughts on this.
Thanks
It's just you. This is nothing short of a troll-post and I'm disappointed other members are giving this assinine pueling any response.
Correct, the U.S. is "unable" to impose maniacal, genocidal dominance. Should we more stringently police the Iraqis and violently enforce martial law? 'Not our role, never our objective.
Was this just an exceptionally oafish post inquiring on the resistance movement's efforts? Pick up a history book. America's founding fathers declared independence in 1776. When was George Washington actually voted into office? It takes time to establish a republic.
NcDeuce
10-26-2003, 09:52 PM
Colombia?
Apogee
10-26-2003, 09:57 PM
Yeah, its a country down there in South America. One of the primary importers of Cocain into the United States....
James
10-26-2003, 09:58 PM
I think I've mentioned it in other threads, but I think the U.S. needs to dust off the old Marshall Plan. I don't think we should have gone to war with Iraq, but we did. We wrecked their country, and we should pony up the cash to help them fix it. It would be nice to get international help (financial and otherwise), but I don't think we should expect it.
This brings up another thought - it took years for Japan and Germany to become fully functional again after World War Two.
NcDeuce
10-26-2003, 10:06 PM
Columbia
Columbia is a school in New York. Colombia is a country between Panama and Venezuela.
Apogee
10-26-2003, 10:13 PM
Thanks smart guy. Sorry, I missed the spelling as its been a helluva long weekend.
NcDeuce
10-26-2003, 10:15 PM
No problemo
Vance
10-26-2003, 10:20 PM
TF, that was really a prick thing to do. :| Please don't be like 115FS
Supes
10-26-2003, 11:40 PM
Thank the Clinton Adminstration for that plan........Im just waiting for the FARC and the rest of those revolutaries will run over the entire South America area yet. Which seems to be inevitable. :(
The US fired 500,000 soldeirs. So now there are 500 000 without jobs. What are they going to do? Well its simple get back at the person who took your job away. That was the greatest mistake the US ever made in Iraq.
The media isn't doing ****. Powel said there is about 25 attacks everyday on average.
Iraqis are well educated people and unlike Afghanistan they don't like anyone occupying them. The US government said that when they roll into Iraq people will welcome them with flowers and hugs. Well that never happened. Isn't that a sign?
martinexsquaddie
10-27-2003, 04:48 AM
Big problem is Iraq bit like Nazi germany looks brilliantly undercontrol but under the surface its a mess. Rule of law er NO Banking system er no Saddam and sons could use the central bank of iraq as there own private account. The whole system was corrupt and people went along with it as resistance was'nt much of a chance.
The iraqi Army did'nt exactly cover itself with glory who exactly dug the mass graves and took people away.
The light fight plan was a Battlefield winner but then left not enough troops on the ground to to prevent the outbreak of lawlessness
Ichhabe
10-27-2003, 07:15 AM
One said:
...and unlike Afghanistan they don't like anyone occupying them.
You really do have a history book of your own in the Arab speaking world.
What is it called: History, as we like it! ????????
Vance
10-27-2003, 07:43 AM
The US government said that when they roll into Iraq people will welcome them with flowers and hugs. Well that never happened. Isn't that a sign?
Wtf? It did happen.
Dalleer
10-27-2003, 07:50 AM
My view of the matter is:
1.
You've got Americans occupying Iraq, something that the population doesn't really like about at all. This alone brings harder times to "win hearts and minds" for the US.
2.
The coalition has got some serious problems in administering the different problems in Iraq, for an example the "500,000 Iraqi ex-army soldiers needing a job"
3.
I think that the Media promised a way too easy of a victory in Iraq to the World, and now when "the serious **** starts" I bet that some people out there are quite shocked to see suicide-bombings, rocket-attacks into hotels, bombs into the UN's buildings and some such.
And in this, I mean just how many of the US troops/ government people believed that these sorts of attacks wouldn't be taking place after rolling into Bagdad?
The thing is, that if the US takes a more heavier role on enforcing its power in Iraq, its not good enough. And, if they continue things like this it isn't good enough either. So what to do?
Maybe if the US terminates Saddam, the resistance might quell down a bit, but then again I'm sure that "where ever the US goes in the middle-east, terrorists follow" , so the Iraqi resistance has got some great stocks of fresh martyrs coming from the other countries just to fight the US troops there.
This has a big chance of turning into a Vietnam-type of a conflict soon, since the US bodycount just keeps on getting higher.
Fargin
10-27-2003, 08:10 AM
First of all, it's a bit scary to hear former 100% pro-war people voice these questions or frustrations. I never doubted Iraqi forces would be slaughtered, but I feared that the Iraqi society would crumble after an evil dictator, 12 years embargo and the latest of 3 wars.
My plus list:
-Saddam hussein gone
My minus list:
-The people of Iraq are wondering how US forces could defeat Saddams army in 21 days, when they can't restore power and running water.
-There were enough US soldiers to defeat the Iraqi forces, but not enough to maintain law & order. It's US duty/responsability to restore Iraq as invaders/"liberators".
-Soldiers are shooters, not law enforcers.
-US needs aneducated international police force to save their asses. It's not enough the teach Iraqi policemen, where not to place their triggerfinger.
-US bypassed and side tracked UN. Now US has the sole responsability and has to pay the bill alone. US wont allow UN to play a significant role.
-US vs. Iraq was rushed. Reports about WMD was sexed up/wrong = no fundation for the war.
Fargin
10-27-2003, 10:28 AM
They don't have to like eachother as long as they can unite against someone.
Fioraon
10-27-2003, 10:42 AM
-There were enough US soldiers to defeat the Iraqi forces, but not enough to maintain law & order. It's US duty/responsability to restore Iraq as invaders/"liberators".
-Soldiers are shooters, not law enforcers.
Interesting....
Anyway on another note the Iraqi's were at 75% of their power capacity in May of 2003. Did, as a whole, Iraq go a good eight weeks without power? Yes. But that was nearly half a year ago. I dont see why people are still bitching about this when power grids are constantly causing brownouts and black outs in California. Where's their internetional attention?
Dalleer
10-27-2003, 10:50 AM
Yes, and currently the worst enemy for the groups is the US. Now, I'm thinking that maybe the group that's targeting the UN/ aid-organisations/ embassies etc. are somehow connected to Al-Qaeda or something.
Now, maybe some other groups are fighting the US (maybe even Al Qaeda is doing this). Now, what remains to be uncovered is that what is Saddam Hussein's stand on all of this, is he allowing Al Qaeda fighters to enter Iraq for the purposes of fighting the US or not?
More, does Saddam have to means to covertly stop the Al-Qaeda people from entering Iraq? and would he even bother to, even knowing what the situation is now.
If Saddam is allowing Al-Qaeda to root itself into Iraq, then I guess that Bush was right when accusing Iraq of Al Qaeda links....although these "links" might have not been there before the operation started they certainly might be there now!
WARPIG
10-27-2003, 11:02 AM
I'd be interested in discussion of Colombia also.
As far as this string.. I have to agree with Scuba. The country will take time to develop. Probably more time than anyone expects. The fact that it is the US taking the lead for not only the war but the rebuilding makes it a hot spot for terrorist support too. Ya think that maybe every terrorist wanna be with a rifle in Iraq might love to plink at the US forces?
It's like the "wild west" in that country now and the unlawful and their hired gunmen are still putting up a fight. Every US hater within sniper range is looking to make trouble. Big surprise. Even people grateful for the liberation from Saddam aren't too happy that it came from the "white devils" from the west. Lets look at that.
-terrorist, wanna-be terrorists, pro Saddam loyalists, pissed off ex Iraqi army, unempoyed Iraqi army, hired guns, common criminals, and generally all US haters.... ~VS~.... US and Brits. (maybe some NATO soon)
I think trying to tell what the different groups of people (threats) can be a little confusing and relative to what mood any one person is in that day.
As far as returning the country to normal.. what is normal? My normal and your normal is not the same. Safe to think that Western normal and Mid-east normal is a little different too. The media is painting a picture of the middle east based on what they think is "news worthy." Don't forget that. I don't like hearing my that my brothers in arms are still getting killed there daily, but we have a responsibility there. Whether your belief is that we have to fix what we broke or to finish what we started..we are doing it. It is costing us.. financially and otherwise, but it is the right thing to do.
11F5S
10-27-2003, 11:14 AM
TF, that was really a prick thing to do. :| Please don't be like 115FS
You don't seem to take correction very well, I guess you'd rather dwell in ignorance.
"Yeah, its a country down there in South America. One of the primary importers of Cocain into the United States....
Colombia doesn't import cocaine or anything else into the United States. They export it.
You boys really should spend more time hitting the books and listening to your teachers.
The US government said that when they roll into Iraq people will welcome them with flowers and hugs. Well that never happened. Isn't that a sign?
Wtf? It did happen.
I don't know if you're being sarcastic or not. :|
Deuterium
10-27-2003, 11:16 AM
The US government said that when they roll into Iraq people will welcome them with flowers and hugs. Well that never happened. Isn't that a sign?
It happened to me in Iraq. You're wrong. Were you there or did you watch the war on TV?
Deuterium
10-27-2003, 11:19 AM
First of all, it's a bit scary to hear former 100% pro-war people voice these questions or frustrations. I never doubted Iraqi forces would be slaughtered, but I feared that the Iraqi society would crumble after an evil dictator, 12 years embargo and the latest of 3 wars.
My plus list:
-Saddam hussein gone
My minus list:
-The people of Iraq are wondering how US forces could defeat Saddams army in 21 days, when they can't restore power and running water.
-There were enough US soldiers to defeat the Iraqi forces, but not enough to maintain law & order. It's US duty/responsability to restore Iraq as invaders/"liberators".
-Soldiers are shooters, not law enforcers.
-US needs aneducated international police force to save their asses. It's not enough the teach Iraqi policemen, where not to place their triggerfinger.
-US bypassed and side tracked UN. Now US has the sole responsability and has to pay the bill alone. US wont allow UN to play a significant role.
-US vs. Iraq was rushed. Reports about WMD was sexed up/wrong = no fundation for the war.
With the exception of the last point I agree with you. Very astute and a good job.
WARPIG
10-27-2003, 11:34 AM
I second that Deute.
I think thinking in absolutes is pretty naive though. There is a big grey area with the WMD reasons for War. Think, there can be any number of factors that the Pentagon/intel agencies can't or won't admit to... The long dragged out inspection and decision to inspect gave Saddam plenty of time to get rid of WMD.. and the end result is that an evil regime is gone.
If the Brits were backing us up 100% then it kind of alludes to the presence of "black ops" intel that may not be stuff that we admit to. What we knew of the WMD and how we got that intel are big factors. We can't admit to knowing something without saying how we got the info without giving up some secrets.
BIG GREY AREA!
Besides.. WMD or not... the person behind the trigger is more dangerous than the weapon itself.
NcDeuce
10-27-2003, 02:21 PM
All that is necessary for evil to triumph, is for good men to do nothing.
Fargin
10-27-2003, 03:24 PM
Ok I'm willing to strike the last point, I think it's more important to find things to agree on in order to promote a productive discussion.
Trigger
10-27-2003, 04:26 PM
James wrote:
This brings up another thought - it took years for Japan and Germany to become fully functional again after World War Two.
Excellent point James. For some reason people think this stuff just happens overnight.
*puts on the 'big red suit' and harnesses the reindeer*
snake
10-27-2003, 05:02 PM
We are'nt controlling anything thats the problem
Its real easy you control
Gas
Food
and Medical
Everyone has an ID card
and if your caught with a weapon
Its shoot first
My 2 cents
Apogee
10-27-2003, 05:11 PM
snake -
I think controling things through those means might enable temporary control, but it doesn't foster a situation where we can pull out of Iraq and not leave the country in total shambles.
11F5S -
I had no problem with him correcting me, I'm not overreacting or anything to what he said. And again, its semantics about import/export, but you obviously knew what I ment.
FallenAngel
10-27-2003, 05:59 PM
Also, remember that the part of Iraq that is unstable is relatively small. I haven't heard a thing about ambushes, car bombings, etc. in the areas under British and Polish control. And in the north, the only problem the Kurds have is with the Turks (but then again, they always will.)
Argyll
10-27-2003, 06:04 PM
snake wrote
Everyone has an ID card
and if your caught with a weapon
Its shoot first
Considering this is the Middle East where just about everyone owns an AK/Weapon of some sort,these are not just for attacking US/Coalition personnel,its for general protection,and this is endemic in that part of the world,to try and get rid of the Gun culture in Iraq,whilst there are more fatalities in the US daily because of this very same gun culture,seems very hypocritical!!
It is your right to own a weapon in the US,but trying to impose an anti gun culture on another country ,that is flooded with them is extremely dangerous,Iraq does not belong to America,Iraq belongs to the Iraqi's,and trying to impose US conditions is not what the common Iraqi wants,why does the same Government not try and get rid of the Gun culture in their own country before trying it on others!!How many more incidents in schools does it take for the country to wake up and realise that Guns are designed for one solitary purpose.................to kill!!!
I know that there are a great many members here who own weapons,for thier own protection and that of their families,and that I can fully understand...............but why in a country that is almost lawless are the Iraqis who only want to protect themselves and their families treated differently................and you wonder why there seems to be no control?
Remember also that there are literally tens of thousands of Saddams most loyal troops still at large,they did not die on the battle field they ,the vast majority melted away,and I would consider them to be very pissed of with the Occupying forces,where did his Special Forces "Brigades " go to?
Isn't it really strange that one of "Comical Ali's last appearances said that they would lure the US troops into the Towns and Cities and launch unconventional warfare on them,and how everyone dismissed these as the ramblings of a madman,and is this not what's happening now?
Let us all just wait and see what the next 6 month brings in the way of peace and stability,and perhaps then control will not be an issue!
I do firmly believe though that this level of resistance was not anticipated by the Planners of this Operation,and this prolonged deployment of Soldiers to try and act as Policemen has caused a lot of the problems seen today!
Vance
10-27-2003, 06:12 PM
Also, remember that the part of Iraq that is unstable is relatively small. I haven't heard a thing about ambushes, car bombings, etc. in the areas under British and Polish control. And in the north, the only problem the Kurds have is with the Turks (but then again, they always will.)
Maybe that's because the terrorists know they aren't American...maybe they only want to kill Americans and no one else.
ßå$tĮТHÏ¿ð
10-27-2003, 07:56 PM
good point you certainly never hear about ambush's of phillipine soldiers or polish or british soldiers ....but you have to remeber majority of the soldiers in iraq are american.
California Joe
10-27-2003, 08:05 PM
Also, remember that the part of Iraq that is unstable is relatively small. I haven't heard a thing about ambushes, car bombings, etc. in the areas under British and Polish control. And in the north, the only problem the Kurds have is with the Turks (but then again, they always will.)
Maybe that's because the terrorists know they aren't American...maybe they only want to kill Americans and no one else.
Number 1 rule of terrorism, Get maximum world media coverage for your actions...
"Now, what remains to be uncovered is that what is Saddam Hussein's stand on all of this, is he allowing Al Qaeda fighters to enter Iraq for the purposes of fighting the US or not? "
Saddam would not want Al Quada in Iraq any more than the Americans would. If Al Quada came apon Saddam they'd kill him as quickly as an American would. Even if he wanted them to come to Iraq he has about as much control of who gets into or out of Iraq as I do... ie zip.
"and if your caught with a weapon
Its shoot first "
Sounds like Somalia again... we can protect you (or even ourselves) but we will disarm you so that you can keep yourself or your family safe either.
"And in the north, the only problem the Kurds have is with the Turks (but then again, they always will.)"
The kurds want autonomy and their country back. Kurdistan consists of Northern Iraq, parts of Iran and a large part of Turkey. The Kurds will be a problem... they will think their assistance of the US attack will earn them at least autonomy... if they don't get it there will be problems. Turkey is probably offering to send troops so that it can have a say in what happens to how Iraq is to move forward... and one thing they will demand is that the Kurds remain an integral part of iraq... there is plenty of fun to come yet guys...
"If the US pulls out, what happens?"
Good point. Plus there must be some anger directed at Bush that is unfortunately implemented via US troops in that if the US wasn't involved at all with this it wouldn't have happened.
Dalleer
10-28-2003, 05:21 PM
All of this is speculation, but if the US pulls out of Iraq it'll be like "Somalia operation backfired part II"
Iraq might plunge into a civil war between the various ethnical factions, or maybe Saddam will come back to power and retaliate against the US somehow.
Any more speculation on my part is this, let's just say that the US would leave a big mess behind, once again.
Nawlins
10-28-2003, 05:48 PM
Well, I might as well throw my 2 cents in. This is a great discussion, by the way.
As far as I can tell, the point isn't really to "control" Iraq the way I understood the original question, because that wouldn't encourage the Iraqi people to control themselves, which seems to me to be the whole point.
But I see a difference between disabling the small factions that continue to cause violence and controlling the entire country.
The US government said that when they roll into Iraq people will welcome them with flowers and hugs. Well that never happened. Isn't that a sign?
It happened to me in Iraq. You're wrong. Were you there or did you watch the war on TV?
They said it would happen at a large scale, that all Iraqis would welcome the US soldeirs. The Iraqis started resisting the second day after the capital fell.
And its good to hear that some Iraqis welcomed you with flowers :)
The US government said that when they roll into Iraq people will welcome them with flowers and hugs. Well that never happened. Isn't that a sign?
It happened to me in Iraq. You're wrong. Were you there or did you watch the war on TV?
well I think bouth of you have rigth:
in the south and north of iraq the coalition forces was welcommed with (allmost) flowers etc..
but in baghdad (f.eks) only ca 50 people was on the spot when the large saddam statue was teard down
(this was presented in an other old topic, whit an picture of the hole place when it went down)
and in saddams home town and towns around it people allmost demonstrated.
(this is taken from NRK,TV2(the two first are norvegian news stations),CNN,BBC and is what I remember)
ßå$tĮТHÏ¿ð
10-28-2003, 06:12 PM
Well iraqi's should be pissed off that syrians are coming over there boards and desperately trying to de-stabilize there country. The sooner they stand up and co-operate with police and international troops the more safe the place will be. You cannot say that some iraqi's didnt know about the attack's of car bombings before it happened. The sooner they realise they are only hurting themselves by not taking responsibility for there own country the better.
Argyll
10-28-2003, 06:57 PM
nearly 40 years under a dictatorship in which ,tens of thousands were killed,living in fear of the unknown............................!!
To say that they're only hurting themselves,the question really here are they?(think about the 1st paragraph!)
Also talk of these loyalists becoming desperate,I also think is premature,so far the IED's that have been used against the coalition have been fairly primative,apart from the Trailer rigged at the weekend,these roadside IED's are nuisance devices,still very effective,as we have seen,unless these guys are taken on then these devices will start getting more sophisticated,and more deadlier,and much bigger,if this resistance is as organised as I believe my self that it is,then things will get a lot worse,and trying to impose a higher degree of control will be so much harder unless there is a significant troop increase.
I also wonder what the members here think ,that was the Iraqi Military machine destroyed as much as what CENTCOM and the Pentagon,said it was,was there really an ovewhelming Military victory against them,or did we simply over run empty positions and the vast majority just dissapeared?I can't recall any media networks(including CENTCOM or the Pentagon) describing the battlefield as being littered with 10's of thousands of Iraqi dead,in the same way they described the scene at Basra in 91(the impact not the fatality numbers)........this has me a little perplexed ,as In any war to degrade the enemy so much so,in that he has lost so many troops that he seriously becomes ,as the buzzword this year was "combat innefective",I also do not recall that there was ever a surrender negotiated either,there are way too many unacountable Iraqi Special Forces,Republican Guard,and Special Republican Guard who have nowhere to go,many cannot return to their families as the ordinary Iraqi will remember them as part of the regime,who were guilty in carrying out these mass killings on Saddams behalf,they have nothing to lose,as the only thing they have left is thier country,which is in the hands of their sworn enemy!!
It would be foolhardy to dismiss them out of hand!!
Vance
10-28-2003, 07:03 PM
The US government said that when they roll into Iraq people will welcome them with flowers and hugs. Well that never happened. Isn't that a sign?
It happened to me in Iraq. You're wrong. Were you there or did you watch the war on TV?
well I think bouth of you have rigth:
in the south and north of iraq the coalition forces was welcommed with (allmost) flowers etc..
but in baghdad (f.eks) only ca 50 people was on the spot when the large saddam statue was teard down
(this was presented in an other old topic, whit an picture of the hole place when it went down)
and in saddams home town and towns around it people allmost demonstrated.
There were more incidents of cheering other than the pulling down of the statue...There were lots more. I have the National Geographic DVD on the war, and it shows alot of it
They were chearing while pulling down staues, and symbols of the old regime not cheering for the US occupation.
Vance
10-28-2003, 09:40 PM
They were chearing while pulling down staues, and symbols of the old regime not cheering for the US occupation.
http://www.fotos.geschichtsthemen.de/iraq-war/04_17_iraq_a.jpg
http://www.fotos.geschichtsthemen.de/iraq-war/04_14_iraq_d.jpg
http://www.fotos.geschichtsthemen.de/iraq-war/04_12_iraq_l.jpg
http://www.fotos.geschichtsthemen.de/iraq-war/04_12_iraq_g.jpg
http://www.fotos.geschichtsthemen.de/iraq-war/04_10_iraq_b.jpg
NcDeuce
10-28-2003, 09:43 PM
woot
If they like the occupation so much why are they targeting the US army everyday?
And those pictures were taken in Karbala or Najaf. If they like the occupation down there why did they declare a new government opposing the existing Iraqi Council?
Ratamacue
10-28-2003, 09:59 PM
If they like the occupation so much why are they targeting the US army everyday?
I wasn't aware that every Iraqi civilian is targeting the US Army. Remember, there are terrorists and fanatics in Iraq just like almost any other Middle Eastern country.
Vance
10-28-2003, 11:02 PM
If they like the occupation so much why are they targeting the US army everyday?
And those pictures were taken in Karbala or Najaf. If they like the occupation down there why did they declare a new government opposing the existing Iraqi Council?
How do you know they were in those cities? It could be in Baghdad.
Mortimer
10-28-2003, 11:05 PM
http://www.fotos.geschichtsthemen.de/iraq-war/04_10_iraq_b.jpg
"don't shoot our mosque!!" rofl
Vance I knew from the Mosque in the picture.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.1.10 Copyright © 2012 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.