It has Begun [Archive]

Professor S

03-19-2003, 11:20 PM

Originally posted by Duffman
All that's going to be left is a smoking crater formally known as Iraq.:usa: :usa: :usa: :usa: :usa: :usa: :usa: :usa: :usa: :usa:

:bonk:

USA V.S. Iraq

USA wins

Lets calm down there. I know this will be a bit of a buzz kill but I feel this needs to be said now.

There is a job to be done, but leveling Iraq is not part of it. Iraq has a populace that is educated enough and westernized enough to become the first ever democracy in the Middle East. The importance of that cannot be overstated for both our and Iraq's benefit.

Freeing the Iraqi people does not involve blowing them up.

oh, yeah... GO US!:usa:

BTW, I think this strategy is brilliant. It sends a message to the Iraqi people that we are not after them, but their leaders. It keeps Saddam on the run, which keeps him from running his military and possibly authorizing biological and chemical weapons or giving the go ahead to light the oil fields. Plus it surprises them, as they have been expecting a "shock and awe" campaign (which i still think is coming). Absolutely brilliant.

GameMaster

03-20-2003, 12:34 AM

Right now while we rest in the comfort of our homes and countries, an Iraqui child cries in the dark, just remember, they're not all bad.

Dyne

03-20-2003, 12:54 AM

None of the Iraqis are bad... except for Saddam. Freaking AntiChrist.

And.. umm.. why haven't they just poisoned his coffee or something yet? Do they really have to blow these oilfields up? Morons.

They WILL hit oil fields. Just you watch.

Jewels

03-20-2003, 04:04 AM

they hit oil fields to make an aerial attack a little bit harder to see the ground, i bet this thing will all blow over in about a week, but if they get help from some of the other larger countries and they start to deploy back on us, starting with the major cities, then this might as well be called W.W.3, if they do this then look out canada here we come!!!! but im sure our u.s. soldiers (god bless them) will hit iraq where it hurts before they can make any large moves..

Professor S

03-20-2003, 09:14 AM

Originally posted by GameMaster
Right now while we rest in the comfort of our homes and countries, an Iraqui child cries in the dark, just remember, they're not all bad.

Also remember that most of that crying has been at the hands of Saddam's regime murdering their fathers and raping their mothers and from starvation because Saddam sold food and medicine shipped to them back to the outside world for profit so that he could rebuild his war machine.

It is my firm belief that the Iraqi people will benefit more from a few weeks of war, than from another 50 years of murderous oppression.

One Winged Angel

03-20-2003, 02:08 PM

Originally posted by Dyne
None of the Iraqis are bad... except for Saddam. Freaking AntiChrist.

I read somewhere Saddam is Islam. Of course no Islam would want a whole country to blow up and die. =\

The Duggler

03-20-2003, 02:49 PM

Originally posted by The Strangler
Also remember that most of that crying has been at the hands of Saddam's regime murdering their fathers and raping their mothers and from starvation because Saddam sold food and medicine shipped to them back to the outside world for profit so that he could rebuild his war machine.

It is my firm belief that the Iraqi people will benefit more from a few weeks of war, than from another 50 years of murderous oppression. Come on! I'm pretty sure that all the food and medecine that the UN sent to iraq, was given to the population. Don't say stuff like that without good backup :mad:

gekko

03-20-2003, 03:10 PM

Originally posted by Jewels02
they hit oil fields to make an aerial attack a little bit harder to see the ground

They blow them up because if Saddam can't have the oil, no one else should, in his mind. The smoke wouldn't stop an aerial attack, all of our pilots are equipment certified, they don't need to be physically able to see anything to perform their missions, and most of our bombs are satellite guided, so it again doesn't matter if we can see it or not.

I don't know where you heard that, but it doesn't make much sense.

Professor S

03-20-2003, 03:26 PM

Originally posted by Ranzid
Come on! I'm pretty sure that all the food and medecine that the UN sent to iraq, was given to the population. Don't say stuff like that without good backup :mad:

LOL!!!

You want backup? Here you go. I hope the Department of State is good enough for you. Download the PDF file and then tell me what you think.

http://usinfo.state.gov/regional/nea/iraq/iraq99.htm

Joeiss

03-20-2003, 03:39 PM

Originally posted by gekko
They blow them up because if Saddam can't have the oil, no one else should, in his mind. The smoke wouldn't stop an aerial attack, all of our pilots are equipment certified, they don't need to be physically able to see anything to perform their missions, and most of our bombs are satellite guided, so it again doesn't matter if we can see it or not.

I don't know where you heard that, but it doesn't make much sense.

Exactly. The 40 something tomahawk missiles were all satellite guidied I think. Unless smoke messes up advanced stuff like GPS, then it will still be good to go... lol.

And... Do you guys think that Saddam will use biological or chemical weapons (if he has any)? If he does, I can only see him using it as a last chance effort where Saddam knows he is gonna lose, so he just blows up stuff... lol. And Saddam hates Israel, right? So what if he launches biological or chemical warfare at them? Everybody knows that Israel has stated to use deadly force (nukes or military i guess) to whoever seriously messes with them. So, Saddam will get messed up either way, lol.

And if Saddam does use biological weapons against American and British troops, then it will definately be game over for Iraq. Because that would be proof that he does have them, so UN will finally authorize the war (even though it allready started), and countries such as Canada, France, Russia and Germany will hop aboard and fight. Not like the British and American troops will need help, but at least politically countries won't be biting eachothers heads off. :p

This is all just opinion, hell I don't even know if it is true or not, lol. So correct me if I am wrong about anything.

bobcat

03-20-2003, 04:10 PM

Originally posted by Joeiss
Exactly. The 40 something tomahawk missiles were all satellite guidied I think. Unless smoke messes up advanced stuff like GPS, then it will still be good to go... lol.

And... Do you guys think that Saddam will use biological or chemical weapons (if he has any)? If he does, I can only see him using it as a last chance effort where Saddam knows he is gonna lose, so he just blows up stuff... lol. And Saddam hates Israel, right? So what if he launches biological or chemical warfare at them? Everybody knows that Israel has stated to use deadly force (nukes or military i guess) to whoever seriously messes with them. So, Saddam will get messed up either way, lol.

And if Saddam does use biological weapons against American and British troops, then it will definately be game over for Iraq. Because that would be proof that he does have them, so UN will finally authorize the war (even though it allready started), and countries such as Canada, France, Russia and Germany will hop aboard and fight. Not like the British and American troops will need help, but at least politically countries won't be biting eachothers heads off. :p

This is all just opinion, hell I don't even know if it is true or not, lol. So correct me if I am wrong about anything.

GPS=Global Positioning System?

If it does, they could make a non destructible missile with a seat, and you could get from A to B in a jiffy.

I might come to the US, you'll notice me as I'll be the tourist on a missile. Smart.

Professor S

03-20-2003, 04:19 PM

yeah, the new tomohawk missiles are said to be able to navigate city streets with the GPS capabilities. Pretty fancy stuff.

Joeiss

03-20-2003, 04:19 PM

Originally posted by bobcat
GPS=Global Positioning System?

If it does, they could make a non destructible missile with a seat, and you could get from A to B in a jiffy.

I might come to the US, you'll notice me as I'll be the tourist on a missile. Smart.

Pardon? I have no clue what this is supposed to mean... lol... are you making fun of me or something? hehe.. i am confused.

Joeiss

03-20-2003, 04:21 PM

Originally posted by The Strangler
yeah, the new tomohawk missiles are said to be able to navigate city streets with the GPS capabilities. Pretty fancy stuff.

At over 350 miles per hour?

:eek:

Professor S

03-20-2003, 04:29 PM

Well it ain't making hair pin turns, but it can recognize mainstreet and lower itself in between buildings and make wide turns. Oh, and it will stop at redlights and go on green;)

Xantar

03-20-2003, 04:43 PM

I wouldn't try riding one of those things to work, though. At that kind of speed, the G-forces would probably rip your intestines out through your stomach. Those missiles are designed to carry much tougher things than humans (i.e. explosives and electronics) after all.

gekko

03-20-2003, 04:49 PM

Originally posted by Joeiss
And... Do you guys think that Saddam will use biological or chemical weapons (if he has any)? If he does, I can only see him using it as a last chance effort where Saddam knows he is gonna lose, so he just blows up stuff... lol. And Saddam hates Israel, right? So what if he launches biological or chemical warfare at them? Everybody knows that Israel has stated to use deadly force (nukes or military i guess) to whoever seriously messes with them. So, Saddam will get messed up either way, lol.

And if Saddam does use biological weapons against American and British troops, then it will definately be game over for Iraq. Because that would be proof that he does have them, so UN will finally authorize the war (even though it allready started), and countries such as Canada, France, Russia and Germany will hop aboard and fight. Not like the British and American troops will need help, but at least politically countries won't be biting eachothers heads off. :p

Do I think he will? I'm hoping not, but it wouldn't surprise me. A quote from a journalist (New Yorker):

Still, I had trouble fathoming why an Administration that had shown
no particular concern for world opinion in the previous months would
go to such lengths to accommodate so many journalists. One military
officer at the Hilton privately suggested an answer: "We want you
here to document the gas and the other stuff Saddam has in his
arsenal. If he has it, or, God forbid, uses it, the world's not going
to believe the U.S. Army. But they'll believe you." This, the more I
thought about it, was not a very encouraging reason to be here. As
the day of the embed drew closer, I began to feel like a lab rat,
heading off for great chemical experiments.

France, Russia, and Germany still won't fight. Plans are made, they are not in them. It's too late. Don't be surprised if they try to help in humanitarian aid after the fighting, so they can then try to get new contracts with Iraq and try to get as much as they can from post-Saddam Iraq. France is already showing signs.

Politically it would be a good thing if Saddam slimed us, but I really don't give a rats ass about politics, I'd rather have France hate us than see anyone die from these weapons.

Shadow_Link

03-20-2003, 06:45 PM

Originally posted by One Winged Angel
I read somewhere Saddam is Islam. Of course no Islam would want a whole country to blow up and die. =\

I think the word you're looking for is Muslim ;).

And if you ask me, he's not really a good Muslim at all after all the bad he has done, heck, he doesn't even meet the standards of a bad one, and really shouldn't be associated with Islam.

Joeiss

03-20-2003, 09:31 PM

Yes, Saddam should not be called a Muslim.

Crash

03-21-2003, 01:11 AM

the funny part is, i said to my friend, "wouldn't it be funny if saddam was killed with the first missile fired" and he may actually have been! a lot of people think that him appearing on tv was prerecorded stuff... i think it was too.

Almansurah

03-21-2003, 06:57 AM

No-one supports Saddam [Muslims].

But we dont want our lands to be invaded for motives which are well known, such as oil, helping Israel...and so on.

There are many things one can say.

Who wants 'liberation' with the price of bombs?

Professor S

03-21-2003, 08:08 AM

Hey! Look who's back! And making as little sense as ever!

So far I don't see how you can look at what the US is doing in Iraq and be critical at any level. They are taking every step to protect the Iraqi people and has even put Allied lives in jeopardy to do so when in any other case they would have bombed them for 5 days before advancing.

Iraq's own military are surrendering left and right. You would think they never wanted to fight in the first place... THEY DIDN'T!

You're problem with this operation is that a Western nation is liberating a Muslim nation. You have said in previous posts that out arrogance and aggression would cause millions to die. It hasn't. The Iraqi people and military WANT to be liberated and are cooperating. Saddam Hussein is a brutal terror, and I feel sorry for you that you are against the liberation of your own people because its coming at the hands of Christians.

I al;so have to feel that France, Germany and Russia are feeling REALLY dumb right now...

ZeroCool51

03-21-2003, 08:38 AM

Saddam declared Jihad on America so we should declare a Crusade on him. A holy war for a holy war.

BlueFire

03-21-2003, 08:39 AM

Originally posted by Duffman
Iraq declared Jihad on America so we should declare a Crusade on him. A holy war for a holy war. Um... no.

Professor S

03-21-2003, 09:08 AM

Originally posted by Duffman
Iraq declared Jihad on America so we should declare a Crusade on him. A holy war for a holy war.

While I appreciate your zeal, I think we have to be very careful about painting ourselves into a religious corner. This operation is about Saddam Hussein, not Islam. The US so far has done an excellent job of keeping this oissue about Saddam Hussein and carefully avoiding as many casualties on both sides as possible.

Remember, we can't be there forever even after a new government is set up, so the impression that we leave will have to act as our representative.

1) Liberate Iraq
2) Immediately identify secular leaders in post Iraq
3) Launch PR campaign complete with pictures of happy Iraqi's with US troops and video of them dancing in the streets.
4) Bring Secular leaders together to draft a document that will act as the rule of law, including a checks and balances system similar to the US (this keeps the winners of the next election from becoming the next Baath party)
5) Form a PARLIAMENT. Reason? Middle Eastern people have traditionally been associated with clans and sects. A 2 parey system would not work for a long time in the Middle East IMO. A Parliamentary system includes may parties that could accurately represent all clans and sects. This way all differing view points are represented.

In order for a democracy to work in any nation, the people must support it. The problem is that the Middle East has never seen a true democracy before, so they have no reason to believe it would work. Make democracy attractive and then the people will do the rest for you.

ZeroCool51

03-21-2003, 09:11 AM

When i wrote it i meant to put Saddam not iraq. We should just declare a holy war against him.

Professor S

03-21-2003, 09:16 AM

Once again, other Islamics and Muslims would make no separation of declaring a holy war against Saddam or the entire Islamic world. The Middle East is already every wary of Western influence in their countries. To many we are "Infidels" and our very culture is an attaack on their way of life, as it is attractive to Muslims and Islamics who live in poverty.

We must keep religion out of this all together.

ZeroCool51

03-21-2003, 09:19 AM

It was meant more as a joke. I did'nt really think people would take it that serious. I know that we can't invole religion because people will fight and die for there beliefs. Declareing a crusade would be one of the worst things we could do, that was not really my opinion it was just meant as a joke. I apologize for any misunderstandings.

ZeroCool51

03-21-2003, 11:50 AM

From what i've heard on Cnn and Msnbc is that around 250 of iraqs troops have turned themselves over to the US and that more were on the way.

ZeroCool51

03-21-2003, 01:31 PM

We just bombed bagdad at 9:30 kuwait time. Reports say we fired 300+ cruise missles. Saddams palace was destroyed.

Mechadragon

03-23-2003, 11:51 AM

It would be difficult to have a crusade when the Pope doesn't even want us there.

Bond

03-23-2003, 12:13 PM

My, my, my look at that.

Iraq has already fired several scud missiles, which according to them they didn't have. Luckily all of them have been shot down by our much improved patriot missiles. Those inspections sure did work, didn't they France?

Iraq also just recently violated the Geneva Convention by shooting one of our POWs through the head. Upon other violations. This is a great regime, isn't it?

And of course Al Jazeera only reports the Iraqi propaganda and never any of the Allied victories. They aren't biased and/or influenced at all, now are they?

Joeiss

03-23-2003, 12:16 PM

Originally posted by Bond

Iraq also just recently violated the Geneva Convention by shooting one of our POWs through the head. Upon other violations. This is a great regime, isn't it?

Umm.... Is that what they actaully did?

gekko

03-23-2003, 12:16 PM

Originally posted by Mechadragon
It would be difficult to have a crusade when the Pope doesn't even want us there.

The pope was against WWII as well, and Operation Enduring Freedom, and every other war that they didn't start.

Bond

03-23-2003, 12:35 PM

Originally posted by Joeiss
Umm.... Is that what they actaully did?
Yes. At least there has been no intelligence contradicting that statement. The video that Al Jazeera aired also violates more rules of the Geneva Convention. That's interrogations and public exposure if you were wondering.

At least the media is exposing this. Many innocent civilians in Iraq are brutally murdered and/or tortured each day in front of their relatives by Saddam's government. Of course you never hear that.

Mechadragon

03-23-2003, 12:51 PM

Now I have a question: Why does it seem that it's always an American that accidently kills some of his squadmates. Are we just that stupid or do the Allies do the same thing but its just not reported to American TV?

And I'm not referring to the grenades in the tents. I'm talking about the incidents in Afghanistan and Iraq.

Joeiss

03-23-2003, 01:42 PM

Two British helicopters crashed into eachother. That was reported.

DeathsHand

03-23-2003, 01:45 PM

Originally posted by Joeiss
Two British helicopters crashed into eachother. That was reported.

And the US accidentally shot down a RAF plane with a patriot missle...

Joeiss

03-23-2003, 03:52 PM

He was wondering about accidents not caused by the American people... So I stated one.

gekko

03-23-2003, 04:09 PM

Originally posted by Mechadragon
Are we just that stupid or do the Allies do the same thing but its just not reported to American TV?

No one's stupid except you. War isn't a game, your teammates and your enemies aren't different colorsk, they don't have a name appearing above their head. You can't possibly expect to know where every single person is aty any given moment. Accidents happen, mechanical problems happen, they always have, and they will for years.

Unless you have only 2 guys fighting back to back, friendly fire is going to happen.

DeathsHand

03-23-2003, 04:55 PM

Originally posted by Joeiss
He was wondering about accidents not caused by the American people... So I stated one.

right-o carry on then

Mechadragon

03-23-2003, 08:41 PM

Originally posted by gekko
No one's stupid except you. War isn't a game, your teammates and your enemies aren't different colorsk, they don't have a name appearing above their head. You can't possibly expect to know where every single person is aty any given moment. Accidents happen, mechanical problems happen, they always have, and they will for years.

Unless you have only 2 guys fighting back to back, friendly fire is going to happen.
I was just saying that it always seems to be us doing the friendly fire.

Professor S

03-23-2003, 10:21 PM

This is a war. Poeple are going to die. I have 2 friends in the Marine Corps in Iraq right now. One or both could be dead and if I didn't fail the physical (horrifically bad knees) I would be with them most likely. It is a risk that must be taken when committing troops to a conflict. This war is not being fought with paint balls, and sometimes unfortuante things happen when you are fighting for your life.

Casualties are to be expected. Did anyone think we would enter this war and not have any troops die?

Mechadragon

03-24-2003, 06:27 PM

Ok, I guess I didn't explain myself enough. I figured there would be friendly fire, but the majority of it seems to come from Americans. This may be because the news channels don't report the ones that are caused by other countries, but I'm not sure. So I asked.

Bond

03-24-2003, 07:33 PM

Originally posted by Mechadragon
Ok, I guess I didn't explain myself enough. I figured there would be friendly fire, but the majority of it seems to come from Americans. This may be because the news channels don't report the ones that are caused by other countries, but I'm not sure. So I asked.
They majority of the troops are Americans.

It's all relative.

Mechadragon

03-24-2003, 10:33 PM

Ahhh...I see, thank you.

The Duggler

03-25-2003, 10:08 AM

Originally posted by Bond
Iraq has already fired several scud missiles, which according to them they didn't have. Luckily all of them have been shot down by our much improved patriot missiles. Those inspections sure did work, didn't they France? Well, maybe if you would have let the UN actually finish the inspections they would have found them.

Iraq also just recently violated the Geneva Convention by shooting one of our POWs through the head. Upon other violations. This is a great regime, isn't it? Huh hello? it's war. And at least they are killing your soldiers, not your childrens.

And of course Al Jazeera only reports the Iraqi propaganda and never any of the Allied victories. They aren't biased and/or influenced at all, now are they? Yhea, they should take the example on the US media right?

gekko

03-25-2003, 10:31 AM

Originally posted by Ranzid
Well, maybe if you would have let the UN actually finish the inspections they would have found them.

No. It's not even debatable. Iraq was required to bring forth all of its weapons, and then the UN inspectors would inspect them, and destroy them. The UN was not in there to search, but they were searching. They searched for 10 years, and they couldn't get the job done. But of course, you have some reason to believe if we give them 50 years things will improve.

Huh hello? it's war. And at least they are killing your soldiers, not your childrens.

First off, there are rules when it comes to war, believe it or not. It would be in our interest to kill the thousands of Iraqi troops who surrendered, but there is a difference between a country who violates human rights, and one who doesn't. And BTW, those soldiers are averaging 19 years old. You know what? Those are somebody's children, from a mother and father who said goodbye to them as little as one year ago.

Yhea, they should take the example on the US media right?

Al Jazeera is showing the brutality of war, and showing what all the evil Americans are doing. That's pure propaganda. Don't believe me, look for yourself (http://www.aljazeera.net/news/arabic/2003/3/3-22-26.htm). But anyone other than Ranzid, take my advice, and don't look. It's nothing you care to see.

mickydaniels

03-25-2003, 10:37 AM

Yeah, we don't have propaganda, neither. Right?
Ever watch that crappy good morning America?

Bond

03-25-2003, 11:26 AM

Originally posted by Ranzid
Well, maybe if you would have let the UN actually finish the inspections they would have found them.

Oh give me a break. No one country actually thought the inspections would work. And no country could honestly say Iraq was free of weapons of mass destruction. That's a joke.

Huh hello? it's war. And at least they are killing your soldiers, not your childrens.
I apologize, I just thought civilized countries were held to moral ethical values that are enforced by the Geneva Convention. Oh wait, Iraq isn't a civilized country and does not follow any international laws.

Yhea, they should take the example on the US media right?
At least the US media is not controlled by the government as Iraqi TV is. And at least the US media does not violate the Geneva Convention. Of course I think the US media is biased. But they aren't breaking any international laws such as Al Jazeera and Iraqi TV.

The Duggler

03-25-2003, 12:06 PM

Originally posted by gekko
That's pure propaganda I don't understand how it's pure propaganda. Are you saying that those person were not wounded/killed by Americans?

Originally posted by Bond
At least the US media is not controlled by the government as Iraqi TV is If you say so.

Bond

03-25-2003, 01:01 PM

Well, if you would like to find any factual information stating that the American press it controlled by the United States government be my guest.

Professor S

04-11-2003, 06:06 PM

I bringing this thread back to life, as I am curious to what all the nay sayers feel now that Iraqi citizens are dancing in the streets, praising president Bush, waving American flags and kissing US military personnel of the cheek.

yeah, the US is really getting bad rap in the Middle East. If anything this has proved that we have had too little faith in the Middle Eastern people. We have to remember that while many of them hate us, most of them onlt know what their governments have taught them.

The biggest threat that the US can bring to other Middle Eastern nations is not in the form of bombs, missiles or oppression. This is not what makes Syria, Jordan and other dictatorships nervous. The biggest threat we pose is the introduction of democracy to to people that have never known it.

Joeiss

04-11-2003, 10:46 PM

Wow... So many Iraqi people have guns, lol... If those Iraqi citizens are allowed to fire bullets in the air and carry guns on the streets, wouldn't it be easy for Saddam loyalists (if there is any, lol) to just open fire on American troops in Bagdad?

Seth

04-11-2003, 11:25 PM

Originally posted by Joeiss
Wow... So many Iraqi people have guns, lol... If those Iraqi citizens are allowed to fire bullets in the air and carry guns on the streets, wouldn't it be easy for Saddam loyalists (if there is any, lol) to just open fire on American troops in Bagdad?
That is happening in parts of baghdad still.

Bond

04-12-2003, 09:23 AM

And just for kicks, lets look at a post from Rick in his old topic:

This may sound incredibly cold, but when America finally reaches Baghdad and 100s upon 1000s of Americans are slaughtered in the worst Urban Combat situation since Stalingrad begins, i will be smiling at every drop of blood that comes out of there body.

Joeiss

04-12-2003, 09:33 AM

Didn't Marc say that?

Professor S

04-12-2003, 10:47 AM

He's Ravishing Rick Rude on these forums.

Joeiss

04-12-2003, 12:25 PM

Oh, i thought bond meant Rick... as in Ric... yep.. lol

Professor S

04-13-2003, 01:26 PM

Hmmmm...

I see none of the anti-war people want to post on this topic anymore. I wonder why that is...

Joeiss

04-13-2003, 01:34 PM

I am anti war in general... It is a shame to see people die... especially civilians... but with the outcome of this war, and all the citizens in the street sheering and dancing, its good to see Iraq liberated.

The Duggler

04-14-2003, 03:36 PM

now that Iraqi citizens are dancing in the streets, praising president Bush, waving American flags and kissing US military personnel of the cheek I'm pretty sure that's a small minority of Iraq's population. You will always have people on both side, I would like to know the % of Iraq's population that actually support the US. Your medias show only the good parts, so you all think that all Iraq is happy now, wich isn't true.

The US is already taking aim to it's next target in it's middle east takeover: Syria.

And how come they haven't caught Hussein yet? Isn't there some mighty bunkers underneat Bagdad? How come we don't hear about those? Did the US searched them?

Professor S

04-14-2003, 06:34 PM

Originally posted by Ranzid
I'm pretty sure that's a small minority of Iraq's population. You will always have people on both side, I would like to know the % of Iraq's population that actually support the US. Your medias show only the good parts, so you all think that all Iraq is happy now, wich isn't true.

Well its a large enough portion to point out Baath party locations and groups of resistance the the US. Also, why wouldn't you think a large portion would like us? We're giving them things that they never had under Saddam, like food, water and medical attention. There have been anti-american protests in Iraq, but that us to be expected. BTW, the whole reason behind the protests were in reaction to the looting, which they felt the US should have policed. That is an arguable point, but I would rather see more Marines come home safe than beey Abdul from stealing a Sony HD TV from a Baath party headquarters.

As for the US media only showing the good parts, have you been paying attention to the coverage? Everyday the US generals are grilled by US reporters. The US battle plan has been criticized up and down since day one. David Arnet is on Iraqi TV praising their government and saying how Iraq is making the US chantge their strategy because of the "fierce resistance." Yes, resistance so fierce it took us all of 3 weeks to unseat the Baath party and the Republican Guard just disappeared into the populace. Wow, they must really love their leader to just let the United States waltz into the middle of Bagdad.

The US is already taking aim to it's next target in it's middle east takeover: Syria.

1) Please name me one country in the last 50 years that the US has colonized.

2) Syria is bringing it upon themselves. They picked the wrong side, have been dealing weapons to Iraq even after the war began, has been allowing any crazy a**hole to cross the border to try and kill the military (which I don't mind since they are just basically disorganized and being slaughtered. Every nutball that a marine kills is one less that will randomly bomb a hospital or child care facility). The US is not targeting Middle Eastern nations indiscriminately. If anything, the US is showing that they are standing behind what they've said: If you harbeor terrorists or support terrorism... you're next.

And how come they haven't caught Hussein yet? Isn't there some mighty bunkers underneat Bagdad? How come we don't hear about those? Did the US searched them?

I'm not sure what you're implying there, but I think he's very likely in Syria by now, if he's alive. He's one man in a sea of Iraqi's the size of California once he takes off the uniform.