Bring It On!

Another anniversary!

April 9th, 2008 | by Dusty |

Today is the day on which the huge statue of Saddam Hussein was torn down in Baghdad. The anniversary will be marked in Baghdad by an all day curfew on vehicles. It’s been five long arduous years since the troops entered the city of Baghdad. What exactly has been accomplished? Oh plenty..

We have spent a boatload of money. We have managed to bring down the bulk of Iraq’s infrastructure. We have built, sometimes with slave labor, a huge American Embassy that is grossly overbudget.

Lets not forget that the Iraqi’s have been able to vote democratically! The fact that the government they elected can’t get squat done is but a small footnote..right? The Green Zone, once considered the safest place in Iraq, is being shelled almost daily by mortars and deaths are a fact of life within those walls these last two weeks. The benchmarks set for the government of Iraq have not been met by and large, but hey..according to Petraeus..its all coming together nicely..but he needs more time.

How do you plan on celebrating another war milestone in Iraq? Have a houseparty? Make sure to invite General Davy over..oh wait..I think he’s busy with the Congress critters again today.

UPDATE: The curfew did not stop squat today in Baghdad. From IHT via TO:
At least a dozen people were killed in Baghdad’s Shi’ite slum of Sadr City on Wednesday, despite vehicle bans aimed at preventing unrest from spreading on the fifth anniversary of the fall of Baghdad.

Police said six people died in clashes overnight, and an explosion in the morning hit a funeral in the slum, killing six more and wounding 14 people.

Dr Qasim al-Mudalla told Reuters 11 bodies and 54 wounded had been brought to the Imam Ali hospital he manages in Sadr City, where U.S. and Iraqi forces have battled militia loyal to cleric Moqtada al-Sadr since Sunday. The dead included four children and two women, he said.

Ah yes General Davy..its going so damn well over there!!! How much more money do ya need dude to keep this going in perpetuity?

Share and Enjoy:
  • Digg
  • Sphinn
  • Facebook
  • Mixx
  • Google
  • e-mail
  • YahooMyWeb
Sphere: Related Content

  1. 14 Responses to “Another anniversary!”

  2. By Chris Radulich on Apr 9, 2008 | Reply

    Doesn’t he sound like the compulsive gambler? I only need to make on more bet and I will be even. The wheel is hot I know I can beat it if I just make one more bet.

  3. By Dusty on Apr 9, 2008 | Reply

    Nice one Christopher! At times I expected a bead of sweat on his brow when he was getting grilled exceptionally hard.

  4. By manapp99 on Apr 9, 2008 | Reply

    “We have managed to bring down the bulk of Iraq’s infrastructure.”

    Actually that was done in the first gulf war and due to the sanctions was never rebuilt. The left likes to say that we had Saddam in a box and did not need to attack. They like to ignore the massive death and suffering by the Iraqis under the sanctions. Then there were the no fly zone bombings taking place killing innocent Iraqis. All under the skillful guidence of the Clinton administration. Check out this article in 2001 about life in Iraq.

    “The United States, with support from some allied governments, commenced a heavy bombing campaign in January 1991, inflicting severe damage on not only Iraqi military forces but much of the country’s civilian infrastructure as well. The war, known as Operation Desert Storm, ended six weeks later, after a ground offensive in March liberated Kuwait from Iraqi control with minimal allied casualties but over 100,000 Iraqi deaths.”…

    “The sanctions have brought great hardships on the Iraqi people, as food prices are now 12,000 times what they were in 1990. It is Iraq’s poor, particularly the children, who have suffered the most. Estimates of the total number of Iraqi deaths from malnutrition and preventable diseases as a result of the sanctions have ranged from a quarter million to over one million, the majority being children. UNICEF estimates that at least 4,500 Iraqi children are dying every month as a result of the sanctions”

    100,000 Iraqi deaths from the original bombing and 4,500 Iraqi children dying every month for 10 years. All of this was just fine with those who oppose the current effort in Iraq. It seems it was o.k. destroy the infrastructure as we did in 1st Gulf War and to continue to kill thousands of kids with the sanctions but not o.k. to go to war to put an end to the regime that brought all this on.

    Life sucks in Iraq now but at least there is hope for the future. Life sucked in Iraq in the 90’s and perpetuating that forever seems to be what the anti war folks would have wished on the Iraqi people.

    President Bush was faced with bad and real bad choices when it came to deciding to go to war. Let things continue as they are with the sanctions killing Iraqis every day, lifting the sanctions and watch an avowed enemy of the US rebuild his military strength for a possible future war or go to war when Saddam was weakened. I suspect that no matter which choice he would have made he would be reviled by the left. He was wise to do what he though was right and not what he thought would be politically expedient.

    I will post the link in the next post as I am not sure it will work.

  5. By manapp99 on Apr 9, 2008 | Reply

  6. By Dusty on Apr 9, 2008 | Reply

    Excuse me but the reasons we were given on why we invaded then occupied Iraq were all proven to be lies..935 times in fact.

    You can’t change the reason for the invasion five years into it. Sorry but it doesn’t work that way.

    To put idiots with no experience at invading and then setting up a new government in charge of the whole debacle was retarded. Doug Feith, Wolfowitz and all the rest of these asshats didn’t have a clue what to do once the Iraqi’s rolled over.

    They made a bad situation worse manapp..and although I doubt you will ever admit that..that is my story and I am sticking to it.

  7. By Chris Radulich on Apr 9, 2008 | Reply


    Remember the food for oil? I though Saddam was in charge of Iraq during the sanctions, not us.

    Are you saying that we should not have fought the first gulf war? Or that we should have abandond sanctions?

  8. By steve on Apr 10, 2008 | Reply

    Post the video where they hung Saddam and chanted Muqtada al-Sadr… Whooops…. isn’t he against us too?

  9. By manapp99 on Apr 10, 2008 | Reply

    Food for Oil Chris? You mean the intent or the reality. The intent was for Saddam to be able to sell enough oil to provide humanitarian supplies to his people. The reality was Saddam building more palaces while his people starved. From this website:

    “5. Oil-for-Food Sanctions advocates proposed Oil-for-Food under Resolution 986 as a temporary solution to the humanitarian crisis. Oil-for-Food materially improved conditions in Iraq in contrast to the early days of the sanctions. But Oil-for-Food failed to resolve the humanitarian crisis, much less provide a long-term solution for Iraq. Punitive deductions for war reparations weaken the program as do unacceptable delays in delivery (less than 60%f of all items ordered from oil sales since December 1996 have actually arrived in Iraq). Politically motivated blocks and “holds,” imposed almost entirely by the United States, have plagued the program as well. Consequently, there has been little repair and renewal of Iraq’s badly-deteriorated infrastructure, including water treatment, electricity, and public health. Oil-for-Food has failed to improve sufficiently the nutrition and health of Iraqi citizens, who continue to suffer from conditions drastically worse than the pre-sanctions period. Less than $200 per year per capita has arrived in Iraq under the program. Studies have amply documented a substantial rise in mortality of children, five years of age and under and credible estimates suggest that at least 400,000 of these young children have died due to the sanctions. Various reforms, including Resolution 1284 have proven ineffective in addressing these problems.”

    I am saying that President Bush was in a pickle as to how to deal with an Iraqi people that was having enormous suffering due to the destroyed infrastructure, the US led sanctions that France and Russia were trying to get repealed, and a corrupt leader in Saddam. Let him stay “in his box” and watch hundreds of thousands of more die, allow the santions to be lifted and watch Saddam rebuild his capabilities and be harder to stop in the future or take action with a weakened Iraq. None of the options on the table were good and I wonder what all those condeming his choice would have done in his shoes? Easy to sit back and criticise especially in hindsight. However I suspect that any course he would have taken would have resulted in the same attacks from those who disliked him from the beginning. You know the whole “stole the election” crowd.

    Keep in mind the crowd that wanted to just keep Saddam in his box never mentioned the estimated 400,000 children under age 5 that died as a direct result of the sanctions.

    400,000. That’s just the kids.

  10. By christopher Radulich on Apr 10, 2008 | Reply

    So the sanctions were working. His infrastructure was deterorating. So how was he suppose to have WMDs pointed at our heart.
    Even assuming that your figures are right, how are they our fault.

    The strange thing is that there is no mention of Iraqi refugees prior to our invasion. Now
    “According to the UN Refugee Agency and the International Organization for Migration in 2007, almost 5 million Iraqis had been displaced by violence in their country, the vast majority of which had fled since 2003. Over 2.4 million vacated their homes for safer areas within Iraq, up to 1.5 million were living in Syria, and over 1 million refugees were inhabiting Jordan, Iran, Egypt, Lebanon,”

    I guess even with everything crumbling around him, with no fly zones, and with bombing Saddam was much better at controlling his borders and his country.

  11. By manapp99 on Apr 10, 2008 | Reply

    Chris, seriously, go to the websites linked or google Iraq+sanctions. These are not “my numbers”. The sanctions were under pressure to be lifted. They were not working. The inspections were not working. Look up the quotes from the Clinton administration and see for yourself. The sanctions are always refered to as “US led sanctions” however I feel the fault was Saddam’s not ours. I am talking about the decisions that faced the President concerning Iraq and like his two predecessors, there were no good options. Like his two predecessors he has taken heat for the course he chose. I wonder what a President Radulich would have done given the same situation.

  12. By Dusty on Apr 10, 2008 | Reply

    The sanctions did not work..and too many countries were caught breaking them and giving kickbacks to Saddam and his boys. Come on..they were a friggin joke.

    The Oil for food program was a complete disaster.

    Steve..the idiots in that video…which I watched were the Al-Sadr gang. They were taunting him because of what he had done to them whilst he ran Iraq. Can’t blame them but it was still ugly and highly unprofessional..but then..when has anyone in power in Iraq been above board yet?? Even the government of Maliki is rife with corruption..its a fact jack.

  13. By Chris Radulich on Apr 10, 2008 | Reply

    Not acted like a coward and attacked a country because I was afraid that they might do something. Not acted like a coward and torured people. I personnally knew that there were no WMDs and stated so many times. It was obvious if you were not looking for a reason to invade. I would not have ignored intelligence reports that said the Al Queda wanted to attack the US.

    I probably would have continued the sanctions. It was less expensive and (in terms of amercian lifes) more safer. Even a porous sanction would keep Iraq off balance and it would not have frightened the Turks. If the UN voted against them then I would have let them lapse.

    Once again the food for oil program was designed to help the Iraqi people. If their leaders chose instead to let them starve then it is on their heads. Not ours.

    However Since you believe that Iraqi was right for humanitarian reason then I assume you cheered when we went to Bosnia and Kosov. I assume that you write angry letters to our leader to invade dhafra sudan. I also assume that you weep tears whenever you remember how we fail to intercede in Rwanda

  14. By Dusty on Apr 11, 2008 | Reply

    Christopher, I agree that the fact that the sanctions didn’t work were not our fault.

    There was no real reason to invade Iraq. We were fed a series of lies and half truths in order to get us and Congress to ‘go along’.

    Now of course, we are still fed bullshit and it has changed to: Well, we still did it for the good of the IRaqi’s..which is total bullshit too. But I think you know that ;)

  1. 1 Trackback(s)

  2. Apr 10, 2008: The Sirens Chronicles » Dizzy’s Ten Post Round-Up

Post a Comment