Some are welcoming them, others are not so happy and then there are those who find themselves without police and start looting (or are the victims of said looting) and are not that happy. Then there are those that blame the cut-off of the water supply on the Americans/Brits, while Iraq is responsible for that. Or in other words, chaos abounds. I think most will keep a low profile until it is certain the S-man is gone from their turf.

Jafo: hey, don't look at me, just explaining the binary mindset of those that have trouble with what Paxxy says.

Most of time I am fixing or riding bikes. The war is in the back of my mind compared to ridding. Helps keep my mind on track. But I do feel for the troops and I dislike the anti-war protestors.

Saddam is evil, or whatever that means. One thing for sure he is killing a lot of Irakis. I agree with that. I don't believe that he is a threat anymore to anybody else. On the other hand I do believe Syria is very dangerous.
So, does that mean that Irak has to be invaded by a foreign country to kill Saddam Hussein? Sure, if you think that Syria, Iran, Saoudi Arabia, and most of the other Arab and African countries also need to be invaded and have their leader removed. I agree that Saddam is a big SOB, but there are others like him.

OK, about the happy happy Iraki people. Every interview or report I see on TV (Canadian TV) shows that although Irakis are happy to get rid of Saddam, they react very strongly at having their own country bombed, especially when it's done by a "godless infidels". Irakis may be anti-Saddam, but they are all pro-Irak.
Sure, there are some that do not rebel against Saddam because they are afraid, but from what I heard, that can't account alone for the amount civil resistance the US/UK troops are finding. For a lot of them, it seems, it's like this: we are going to go from an Iraki tyran to having an American ruler.

As for the amount of victims, again it's no invention. From what I heard, city warfare is extremely bloody. The invading army has to expect to loose as much as 20 to 30% of its combatting troops in a city warfare context. Do the math, that means a lot of American and British casualties.

As for the other arab countries joining in. Again I'm not inventing it. Even Rumsfield is aware of the danger, so much that he officially warned Iran and Syria last week.


And finally, bakerstreet: I am certainly against any conflict around this planet. Just none get the media coverage like this one does. And besides, we criticize the most what we care about, don't we? I love the American people, I just hate their government's foreign policies.

didn't say they were. Thanks for yelling at me, all is well again. I do not have a preoccupation with bicycles, it is just that they keep a roof over my head.

thank you.

Is it me or is this insane?

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story2&cid=540&e=4&u=/ap/20030331/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraq_sabri_1

NBC is free to hire and fire who they want, yes. It's free.

Hum, should have said "freedom of speech".
But yeah, it's no secret that there isn't such things really. Most newspapers or tv stations have a general direction and if you work for them, you have to adopt the opinion of your employer.
That's why there are newspapers that are known to be "right" or "left" wing.

I don't think NBC are pro-war. I don't even think they personally were offended by his statements. However, they do have an american audience with soldiers in the war, and what Peter Arnet was spouting was plain old 'bad for business' in NBC's opinion. That's my guess.

Speaking of the press, the British government recently complained about the BBC's (British national tv) critical approach to the undertaking. They (goverment) think they (BBC) should show some more support for the Cause and stop being so objective.

Trouble is, no one remembers what the job desciption for 'journalist' really is. In its purest form not only do you not state your own opinions, but you really don't even interprate the facts you relay. You say what happened with the highest degree of accuracy and detail possible. To be fair, I don't think there is one pure news source anywhere now. 'Expose' has taken its place, and such is always biased.

What Peter Arnet did was say openly that the original US war plan was a failure, and we were skipping and fetching to make a new one. He also said that the US people were growing tired of the war, and most didn't want it to begin with. This is what Saddam Hussein is relying upon and predicting, word for word.

ANYTHING that is said that would make the Iraqi people think, "Well, maybe if I just fight for another week before I give up, we'll win." is basically Iraqi propaganda, and a weapon against the Coalition. That's why we took out the TV there as well. They are gonna lose, and the harder they fight, the more of them will die, and the more civilians will be at risk.

****


paxx: if you don't think Hussein is a threat to the world or his neighbors, then you are ignoring 30 years of history. During that time he has purchased weapons grade nuclear material from France, made war on and invaded nations that borders him, paid the families of suicide bombers 10,000 dollars each, lobbed missiles at anyone who offended him, and so on, and so on. When hasn't he been an active threat to someone?

Now that he has such huge grudges to settle, you think he will be nicer? Hardly. He started upgrading his military the *second* the gulf war was over, and there is *no* way to stop him, sanctions or not. What's he upgrading it for? He has seen how the US fights, and what it would take to win a war against them. He has allies that can make-to-order the equipment he needs.

Given the breathing room and the billions of dollars he will get from anti-war Europe and Asia, he can construct a defense that will be very difficult to crack. Than he can do what he wants to whoever he wants, and it will be up to us to either nuke him or let him.

about a year after the war is over we'll begin to get an idea who is really happy or unhappy in iraq. a lot of what we observe now is temporary posturing tied to temporary situational stressors.

syria supports terrorist organizations, but they keep such a low profile in the public media that it's very hard to guess what they would or wouldn't do. relative to that point, i asked a saudi arabian air force officer i'd worked with for 3 years to rank his enemies. his list:
1. syria
2. iran
3. israel
interesting.