el viajero,

I don't believe our military figured that the people would come out in throngs to greet them. I do believe they knew that the Shiites in the South, and the Kurds, in the North, would eventually support what we're doing, to gain their own freedom. Of course there's optimism on our part, and always will be. But that was guarded optimism, since it was well known that the UN abandoned these same people during the Gulf War, when they had the Hussein regime under pressure, and could have taken him out.

Had the UN allowed the coalition to finish the job, these people would have been lining the streets in support, as coalition forces moved by, since they had taken up arms against Hussein.

But, once burned, because of the self-righteous attitude of the UN members who were using the withdrawal at that time to gain a foothold in Iraqi sales, we withdrew. A terribly stupid thing to have done, and we can thank the UN for it.

The stories as to what happened to the Shiites after we withdrew should more than tell you why they aren't overly ready to accept us as liberators today.

But, let's look at certain aspects of the news. The ability of coalition planes to identify exactly which targets should be hit throoughout the country. It's obvious that there are Iraqis stepping forward and helping us, even though they and their families would be slaughtered by Saddam's faithful. There is absolutely no way we would be able to gather the intelligence we're getting on targets without their help. Consider that, and you might find the people are really thankful we are there.

Are we disappointed that the people aren't reacting totally in favor of us? Of course. We can always hope it would be there, and when it doesn't happen, there has to be a bit of disappointment. But don't mix disappointment with it being something we had expected, military plans aren't based on specifics that are like that.

You might also want to ask the thousands of Kurdish troops who are helping the small contingent of U.S. paratroopers in the north, to contain, and help drive back the Iraqi forces there, as well as their deployment in the attacks against the terrorists cells operating freely under Iraqi military protection.

Wolf

When Saddam and his henchmen are toppled, there will still be some fighting, but by and large, the Iraqi people will see their new world is one of opportunity, and escape from tyrany. That's when the healing will really begin.

I don't know what interviews you're watching, or what you consider as being "bewildered," but I do see American Commanders avoiding giving information that would be helpful to the enemy. I think you're seeing the disgust they have over the questions asked, more than bewilderment. You'd think these reporters would have more common sense than to step into the face of a field commander and say; "And tell me General Halftrack, do the attacks by Iraqi soldiers in civilian clothes, surrounded by human shields disturb you, and have you changed your tactics about handling these situations in the future?"

Those are question asked by idiots, and I'm afraid there are too many of them who have license to attend briefings, and push a mic in front of a person.

As for Peter Arnett being canned by MSNBC, and NBC, I realize it may be "censorship." Yet, what he did say was giving aid and comfort to the enemy. Still, I am not certain that he should have been fired, because I've always considered him somewhat neutral, just like I did back in the Gulf War. He's a solid reporter, and even if he has started to feel compassion for the Iraqi military, it's akin to the Stockholm Syndrom in some respects, because he's seen the results it holds for people. Anyway, it was only his opinion, that our attacks weren't breaking the will of the Iraqi military.

On December the 30th, 2001, thirty American bombs hit the village of Niazi Kala, Afghanistan, and slay some one hundred locals. That was just one of the glorious feats of American arms during the epic war of Afghanistan. It was worth the pain: eventually, the war brought to that country for the first time in its history, a president who is, in the same time, an employee from the oil company Unocal.
Now pals, you thought you would never see anything as exciting, didn`t you? Wrong! Just check the last two weeks: a bus full of Syrians is hit by an American missile (not only they missed the aim, they missed the COUNTRY they were supposed to fight). Then those sixty terrorists (men, women, children) blasted in one hit, in the market of Baghdad (the market of Baghdad, just like in 1001 Nights – it`s so exciting!!!). And now, the bus in Nayef, where seven wogs, all females and cubs, were defeated by allied troops in a short and glorious battle. This time it was nothing as impersonal as a bomb,or a missile; this time it was the old, good “easy trigger” amusement against an unarmed target. I bet the soldiers enjoyed an exciting experience. I bet shooting real bullets at real children is much better than any video game.
Now, there is a thing I don`t understand. Why did the allied army put the blame at first on those wicked Saddam thugs? I admire the Saxon idea of “fair play” but, well, if you have earned glory and deserve admiration, just enjoy it, don`t need to offer it to your enemy. Imagine! American troops aren`t being able to even conquer Bassora, but they were able to grab seven women and children, and transform them into some sort of Iraki giant pizza. That`s what I call bravery.
Has Bush said anything about honouring them with the Congress medal?
Heil Bush! SIEG HEIL!!!!

Cristobo,
Aren't you making proclamations without supporting them with facts? While U.S. troops may have been at fault, I do not think that has been fully established. It seems there are conflicting reports regarding whose bomb hit the market in Baghdad. Of course the Iraqi regime is going to say it was a U.S. bomb while the U.S. says it was an Iraqi missle that fell off course. Regarding the van, from what I read, it appears that the soldiers acted in self defense. However, I would prefer to wait for further details especially before I start comparing our President to Hitler. Don't forget that it was those unfortunate civilian's own leaders who warned of future suicide attacks.

If it is in your interest to rid the world of Hitler-esque leaders, maybe you are right, the U.S. should pull out of Iraq immediately. Allow the Saddam regime to re-acquire power. Allow the Iraqi citizens to experience, again, the peaceful and compassionate nature of Hussein. Or do you have a better solution?...

Ed,

Cristobo rarely offers anything that resembles facts, just "anti-American" rants. Communists don't have to offer solutions, they just have to blame everyone else for the ills of the world. Today we're Nazis, a few months ago we were Fascists. Go figure!

Apparently they haven't found out the Soviet Union folded under the same rhetoric.

Wolf

When in 1939 France and UK decided to declare war on Germany they knew they were choosing between two terrible decisions: Doing nothing, and continue to see how Germany seized one free country after another, and how minorities were going to be harrased, or making a horrible and bloody war, in which civilians of every country involved were going to die.

When in 2002 US decided to invade Afghanistan, and when in 2003 the Coalition forces decided to invade Iraq, I think that nobody could think this was to be a war without inocent victims (is there any war like that?). We all had to choose between two terrible decisions: Let talibans continue their genocide and supporting Al-Qaeda, let Iraq continue to irresponsibly use and stock massive destruction weapons, and let two terrible dictatorships continue to kill thousands of their citizens, or make a terrible war in which inocent people was going to die.

It is as simple and as terrible as it seems, a pure economy of lives. We must choose between the better of two terrible decisions. For me that decision is war.

Fernando

Fernando
The decission to start the war in Afghanistan had nothing to do with the welfare of Afghans, nor fighting terrorism, nor any honourable reason. War started for certain reasons, like the Caspian sea pipeline, the growing strategic importance of Central Asia, the ban of opium crops (the only ban that Taliban were not allowed to do) and so on.
Let`s say it again, no war in history has started for ethical reasons, but economical and political ones.
I enclose you a couple of interesting links:
http://www.idleworm.com
This used to be quite a funny site, but lately it has been busy collecting all the war reports that TV channels are systematically censoring.
http://http://www.fair.org/
Media watch. A good site if you want to know quite accurately the scope of censorship today.
By the way, bad news, two good sites, www.yellowtimes.org and Al-Jazeera.net have been recently attacked by American pro-war zealots. I hope these brave people manage to mend both sites!

Carmenn, I agree with you, these wars are not started only to depose tyrants for the good of their citizens. No country would risk its soldiers, its money and its public opinion for it. But as a secondary target and a consequence of the war, those tyranical regimes are being deposed.

The reasons for the war are much graver. In the case of Afghanistan, as I have stated, to cut off support to Al-Qaeda, in the case of Iraq, probably due to the stock and use of chemical weapons.

I think that the oil argument is pure demagogery (though I don't deny it may be a reason to start the war). What do you prefer: A tyrant who use the incomes of the oil to build palaces, buy weapons while his people starves, or the oil production managed by the USA, an ally of Spain, with the oil incomes used to better the population situation?

Remember: Iraq has almost the greatest oil production, but iraqis are not living as well as their neighbours (Kuwait, Saudi Arabia) nor they were living as well before the blockade.

Fernando

aidance: Just checking in...I think that the phrase "history will reveal who was right" should be restated. Correctly read, it should say "history will be written by whoever wins the war". Might makes right?

As for Wolf, I'm with you 100%. I was a kid during Vietnam, but am a historian and find it scandalous and abhorrent to know that Americans spat upon you and your comrades upon your return.

It's really easy to sit back and watch the war on TV and second-guess those involved. Opinions are like a-------, everyone has one, and everyone thinks everyone else's stinks. We've got to put that aside.

We're going through our studies of WWII right now, and as I look at some of my mother's first-hand accounts, I find it hard to imagine a "peace-nik" during that time having a snowball's chance in hell of organizing a protest against war.

Obviously this is a different war, but there are too many similarities to ignore...ruthless dictator, appeasement attempts, chemical weapons, etc. The main difference here is that it is a war of pre-emption, not reaction.

Alright, I've babbled long enough...my apologies.
Hey, Don MadridMan, when will you be going to bed on Sunday?

Wolf - again I am disappointed with the comment:

"The anti-war movement does not care about people."

You really like using that one but it's a terribly inaccurate assumption.

Are you so jaded that you think all we want to do is defy our leadership and cause problems for the Bush administration? I guess I'm lost as to what you think the movement is really about. Again let me say - it is ALL about people. Innocent American civilians, American troops (45 so far...although it seems these numbers are always low-balled during the actual war), and Iraqi civilians (of which an estimated 4,000 have now died).

Again - I can't speak for everyone, but I can say that to me - anti-war opinions are ALL about people. The damage done by this war to the Iraqi people is damage that would have taken Hussein 3 or 4 years to do himself. And certainly so much could have changed between the time the war started and 3 or 4 years from now - including international support for overriding his regime which would have made this war easier on everyone. If Hussein knew the entire world - or even 70% of it - was against him, there would have been less of a fight (assumption, of course). By acting unilaterrally, we undermined the legitimacy of the act. Additionally, in the end, acting unilaterally may end up costing us our freedom - we may be living in another Israel shortly - marred by cyclical violence and terrorism. Time will tell, but this is the fear a lot of people have these days.

Bush's ignorance of popular opinion doesn't deserve silence and collusion - that would tell Bush it's okay to wage war whenever he see's fit regardless of his people's opinion. I know Bush has access to information we do not, but too much of it has been proven false - undermining his credibility. I don't view elections as a formality - I view them as representation. A leader's responsibility to accurately represent his people should not end after being sworn-in. For that reason, it's important that the protests continue - send the message to the President (not the soldiers) that it is NOT okay to ignore the people's wishes. It is contrary to what the U.S. is all about.

And these comparisons to Hitler...*sigh*...I just don't see the correlation. Hussein was not amassing enough power to ever compare to Hitler - hasn't even made threats to another country for 12 years. It's just not the same thing...unless you're paranoid.

PS - I'm SO thankful you see Bush's faults! We DO agree on that.

I am hoping someone can help me with this issue. I see time and time again, on TV and on web sites, Iraqi citizens giving US troops the thumbs up sign (as indicated by my message icon). I am also aware that in different cultures, societies and countries hand gestures mean different things. When I see an Iraqi giving a US soldier the thumbs up are they happy to see them or insulting them?