IRAQ FREE - JOY OF PEOPLE SHOWS BUSH WAS RIGHT

by ipsi phi Thu Apr 10, 2003 10:56

On 7, April, 1945 Military Council of 3rd Shock Army (lead by general Kuznetsov) decided to make 9 “victory banners”. They were made of table-clothes in Moscow and presented to 9 divisions of the Army in 20ths of April. All banners were destroyed except the banner #5. It was hoisted upon Reichstag on 30, April, 1945 21:50 by sergeants Egorov (russian) and Meliton Kantarija (georgian). Lt. Berest escorted the two inside the building, but he didn't went to the roof. As you understand nodody (and famous photographer Khaldei too) can take a photograph in that time. It was late evening.

The banner was photographed by plane in early morning ot 1, May. But on afternoon 1 of May the banner was throwed down with german projectile. Somebody (may be Egorov and Kantarija again?) hoisted the banner again in afternoon 1 of May. On 3 of May the Banner was taken off from Reichstag and in June was sent to Moscow.

The Victory Banner was not a first red banner upon Reichstag in 1945. It is a well known fact since 1960ths. It was first official flag, first flag officially adopted and inspired by army command.

Other banners was made by soldiers without official adoption. We know about 40 (!) red banners hoisted by different military units of Red Army upon Reichstag. All they were hand-made, very often plain red without inscriptions. First red flag was hoisted by G. Bulatov on 30, April, 1945 14:25 (plain red banner). It was throwed down soon because the battle was very fierce.

by pat c Thu Apr 10, 2003 11:06

American special forces have this morning reported the successful
takeover of Baghdad airport. However further inspection by Irish
journalists of the lack of ground staff and no open services or shops
revealed it to be the Ryanair Baghdad airport. American troops have
in fact landed 400 miles south of Baghdad but will avail of the feeder
bus that leaves from Mohammed O'Kellys Irish bar every day at 6pm.

by Eoin Dubsky Thu Apr 10, 2003 11:16

If the crimes against humanity of September 11th in New York and Washington had succeeded in, say, changing US policy on Israel/Palestine, would it have been justified? Can crimes against peace and crimes against humanity ever be justified?

by James McKenna Thu Apr 10, 2003 11:25

It's a good media trick to pretend that taking a few streets in the city centre of a country the size of France is Victory, let alone liberation.

There is no big welcome or joy for the US in Baghdad except from the relatives and lackeys of the proposed new US regime. All the Iraqi people say they want the US army of occupation to leave, as soon as possible. If the US don't leave you will see a lot of resistance, which is in fact the real war that was promised.

What a victorious day it was for the British army when they "liberated" the Nationalist people of the Falls Road in 1969! They were welcomed too with cups of tea and smiles by the people whose homes had been attacked until the previous night by British Loyalist terrorists.

Once it became obvious the Brits were there to occupy and control nationalist areas that had been demanding civil rights, they got a much different reception and in fact what historian will not admit that is then "the war" started.

Iraqi people are like us in that they hope that the US will do what their tin hat says. They have been blasted with the message "we are only here to liberate you and leave" . If this is true there will be peace and maybe even "victory". If it is not in bad taste to rejoice in victory when people are still being killed in their homes, ambulances and mosques, as well as in their US army uniforms.

Have you considered that some of the HUNDREDS on the streets yestersay in Baghdad, apart from the US army, media and lackeys, were in fact Iraqi soldiers proclaiming their new loyalty to avoid capture?

The US are looking for the secret police records and other files at which time they can commence to "cleanse" society through a system of interrogaions .

by Andrew Thu Apr 10, 2003 11:29

Well first off so far we have seen a very tiny minority of Iraqis showing any reaction the war. The pulling down of the statue made good TV but how many were involved, 50? Perhaps 100? The population of Baghdad is 5 million odd.

Now its probably a good guess that most of those people will be glad to see the back of Saddam. We all agree, pro or anti war that he was a nasty guy. But does this mean they welcome the US invasion? I'd suggest that the fact that so few ventured out means that right now they do not - even though they are glad to see the back of Saddam. They (rightly) fear what the intentions of the US occupation army are.

If you flicked off Sky News to watch some of the more in depth coverage offered by Channel 4 and Newsnight (BBC2) you got a wider range of reactions from Iraqis. No one mind you saying Saddam was a great guy! But you got people showing journalists the spots where the US had killed children (hardly welcoming the invasion), others said the fall of Saddam was welcome but they wanted the US to leavem other more wealthy folk were demanding that the US and British forces stop the looting. Some indeed did thank Bush and US soldiers (these were pretty much the only reactions shown on Sky).

It's probably true that if the US leaves fast, there are free elections and Iraq gets a large share of the oil wealth (rather then being tied into some crap deal with the corporations) then in a years time many Iraqis will think, all things considered, the invasion was worthwhile.

If as seems more likely there is a long military occupation and a fairly long US direct rule which hands over to some corrupt shit heads then in a years time there will be a different viewpoint. And if the oil is sown up so US corporations take the lions share of the profit and leave the people with the scraps then this will be all the stronger.

What the pro-war people need to understand is that most anti-war people opposed the war not because
1) they thought Saddam was a good guy
or
2) they thought Iraq would win

They opposed it because they reckoned
1. The reasons for going to war were a lie [this has almost been admitted by the US at this stage]
2. The war will kill large number of civilians and much larger numbers of conscripts. [large numbers have been killed, hopefully less then what we feared but there is evidence to suggest that where the media was not watching the US dropped cluster bombs on towns and villages]
3. The war would result not in freedom for the Iraqi people but in 'regime change' resulting in a new dictatorship operating on behalf of the US.
4. A US victory would encourage its imperialist interventions elsewhere [Rumsfeld has confirmed this already]

As honest assessment of the real reaons many opposed the war shows many remain valid or have even been proved true.

by Glen Moran Thu Apr 10, 2003 11:42

Regrettable? fuck you. Try tragic, unjustified, criminal, outrageous or insane for starters.

and the justification?

"Saddam would have killed them anyway"

by lex Thu Apr 10, 2003 11:50

one of the primary modes of operation for US propganda has been the "demonization" of the target. I don't see any likely candidates here except N. Korea.

I suppose a campaign could be worked up for Syria but it would take some ground work.

Though given momemtum they may dispense with the Boogie Man creation.

N. Korea is going to be fun. They actually have some WMD.

by Andrew Thu Apr 10, 2003 11:52

Just found an excellent report from Robert Fisk on infoshop.org that says some of what I was trying to say above a lot better. It's at
http://www.infoshop.org/inews/stories.php?story=03/04/09/2744028

"You'll see the celebrations and we will be happy Saddam has gone," one of them said to me. "But we will then want to rid ourselves of the Americans and we will want to keep our oil and there will be resistance and then they will call us "terrorists". Nor did the Americans look happy "liberators". They pointed their rifles at the pavements and screamed at motorists to stop ? one who did not, an old man in an old car, was shot in the head in front of two French journalists."

by Chekov Thu Apr 10, 2003 12:47

One of the first things that the americans are going to do will be to redeploy saddam's police force. They have said as much. In a dictatorial regime it is the police force that are the public face of the regime to most workers and I'd guess that their brutatlity and arrogance are despised by the majority, even more so than the secret police (who probably only concern themselves with the wealthier classes). Therefore, I'd say that the initial euphoria of freedom won't last too long, as soon as the same old brutal cops are back on the beat, the honeymoon will be over.

by David Rynne Thu Apr 10, 2003 12:53

The war did not start 3 weeks ago, it started 2 years ago in Afghanistan, this is chapter two of a never ending story. As I type the Kurds are storming cities in northern Iraq which is something that America guaranteed to Turkey would not happen. This leaves two scenarios.

The united states will force the Kurds out of the towns and cities they believe to be their ancesteral home. That can only lead to long term war in northern Iraq.
Option 2, America allows the Kurds to take control of Kurdistan, outcome, Turkey has a huge problem on it's hands as the turkish kurds want part of the action and turkey will not allow that, outcome, war

Whatever happens, the scene is set for major instability in the middle east

by Andrew Thu Apr 10, 2003 12:57

Where a Kurdish uprising has driven out the republican guard. BBC24 are hilirous as they don't know how to report on it as 'its not clear if this is with the approval of the US'. Does this mean its good or bad? We'll have to wait to hear from the Whitehouse to see if the Kurds are allowed to free themselves.

[For those in the dark on this its probably that the US settled the row with Turkey by promising that it would not allow the Kurds to get Kirkurk. As the BBC explains its "a rich oil city which the Turks will not want to see fall into exclusive Kurdish control". 40% of the oil revenue of Iraq comes from there.]

Turkey is making noises about intervention, wonder who the pro-war crowd will cheer for in that potential four cornered battle.

by Ciaran Thu Apr 10, 2003 13:09

This might have been posted already, its from the DC Indymedia. It gives some perspective on that picture of the Saddam statue that's all over today's papers.
http://www.dc.indymedia.org/front.php3?article_id=63743&group=webcast

by Rob Thu Apr 10, 2003 13:30

I posted this comment as aresponse to some one else but it applies here also . . .

Power stucture in iraq after war will not simply be placed down like a big billowing warm blanket covering the millions who inhabit baghdad. Think about it for a minute . . . The pentagon have been planning iraq rule and system redefinition for a while now, in a very detailed way. They have not done this without consultation of those most appropriate or in the right postions to accept the pressure of this reform, what ever form that takes. Add these widely known facts to some others - (like the snide slogan being heard throughout the halls of the pentagon, "UN role no UN rule", and the madia war being fought to justify the war etc. - then return to these images of people in jubulant exhileration at the prospect of iminent freedom. Now do the sums. How many millions in habitation to how many millions in jubulation, how many in jubulation to haw many in new governments "democratisation", how many images to public justification. Iraqi people are going to be involved in Americas rule, they have to be for public perception, the Americans and Iraqis know this. They also know they cannot use any existing politicians, diplomats or baath party members due to the scrutiny of this war from a variety of angles. The lesser known/unknown people who will take the reigns cannot afford to buy their way to rule in the new American system (the American system being based on money), but the American politicians' money comes from public perception, often indirectly through the corporate sector, but none-the-less public perception can make a formiddable second best in making up a price where money is lacking. Now take those pictures and watch them closely, how many of the organising figure of these "free speech welcoming rallies" will be sitting on seats f power in the near future, and how many of the crowd will be party members . . .

by Andrew Thu Apr 10, 2003 13:39

Things are heating up - BBC reporting that US forces are rushing towards Kirkurk so that they "can get the American flag (presumably they mean the US one) on top." "Everywhere else they are keeping the American flag in the background, in the Kurd region they want it on top to reassure Turkey".

Historically Kurdish uprisings have been about a lot more then nationalism, in 1991 mover 100 workers councils (Shoras) were set up. See the link for details

by Andrew Thu Apr 10, 2003 13:50

BBC reporting US special forces rushing for Kurkuk also reports that over 100 (Kurdish fighter) vehicles (pick up trucks etc) have arrived with armed men - thousands of Kurds are pouring out and throwing roses etc. According to the BBC its a "well and truly murky situation" - obviously still waiting for word from the Whitehouse as to whether this is allowed.

by Maubere Thu Apr 10, 2003 14:05

Unbelieveable!!! He posts an article about Iraq being liberated, when he was doing this he would have seen the previous article about US backed terrorists (mostly former killers from Saddam's army) looting and rampaging thru an Iraqi town. These facts don't sit very well with the "liberated" spin so he just ignores them.

PS I'm sure the people of Poland were happy when the Red Army drove the Nazis out in 1945 but they weren't too happy when the Soviets installed a puppet regime, it took them 45 years to get rid of it.

by Ciaran Thu Apr 10, 2003 14:07

Strong lobbying by US art dealers to allow export of Iraq historical treasures after the war.

by Anonymous Thu Apr 10, 2003 14:50

Andrew, once again, thank you for all the insightful information you are providing.

You raise two possible scenarios:-

"It's probably true that if the US leaves fast, there are free elections and Iraq gets a large share of the oil wealth (rather then being tied into some crap deal with the corporations) then in a years time many Iraqis will think, all things considered, the invasion was worthwhile."

"If as seems more likely there is a long military occupation and a fairly long US direct rule which hands over to some corrupt shit heads then in a years time there will be a different viewpoint. And if the oil is sown up so US corporations take the lions share of the profit and leave the people with the scraps then this will be all the stronger."

First of all we cannot be sure what is going to happend.

Second, if option one happens, would you admit that yours (and mine) anti-war stance was wrong?

Thirdly if the second scenario happens, you say there will be a different viewpoint (from the Iraqi's) - But can you be so sure how strong this
viewpoint will be? Even if the Americans exploit the Iraqi people, which no doubt they will - will the Iraqi people still be better off overall considering that the brutal regime of Saddam is gone? Maybe they won't be, but how do we know?

Is it for the likes of you and I to decide what is best for the Iraqi people?

Would you at the very least say that a 100% anti-war stance is mis-guided? This issue is not black & white. It is the opposite, it is very complex?

Howere, I think there a few certainties, for example:-

1. The horrific aiding of Saddam by the U.S.
2. The horrific 12 year sanctions.
3. The selfish and sinister real motivations of the U.S. for this war.
4. The horrific 24 year regime of S. Hussein.

But whether the Iraqi people will benefit or not overall from this war, I do not believe for one moment is certain - as both pro-war and anti-war people alike would have you believe.

Life in genearl is not black or white, it is all sorts of shades of grey.

Best regards...

by Andrew Thu Apr 10, 2003 15:12

First off rather then being 'Anonymous' would you counsider using some sort of name to distinguish you from other 'Anonymous' posters. It would be useful to know if you were the same Anonymous I corresponded with yesterday to avoid repetition.

If we were goldfish (who apperantly have 10 second memories) then I could accept the idea that both my proposed outcomes (and all those between and beyond them) were equally likely. But with a 10 second memory we also could not make any judegement as to whether Saddam was good, bad or indifferent.

We are not goldfish - we form judgements today not only on what happened yesterday but also what happened 5, 10, 15 and 100 years ago. This is how you know Saddam is a bad man - you judge him on things like his gassing of the Kurds nearly two decades ago.

Now the odd thing is that while the US encourages us to remember the bad side of Saddam we are VERY strongly discouraged from remembering what they were responsible for (including arming him) in that period and more recent times. That apperantly is irrelevant historical detail with no relevancy on the situation today. Subcommadante Marcos of the EZLN refers to this as the war again memory.

To remember is to resist. I remember that the US helped Saddam into power. I remember that they armed him. I remember that in many, many countries they backed dictators. I remember they they trained the officers who murdered hundreds of thousands across Southern and Central American in the 1980's and 1990's. I remember that the oil companies gave millions to George Bush. I'm not meant to remember any of this (or at least I'm not meant to admit its relevence) but I do.

That memory makes me believe that all possible options as to what happens now are not equal. It makes me belive that what is on offering is not freedom but a new form of slavery. It makes me believe that if the workers of Iraq resist this (and in the north it looks like they already are) then a brutal dictator will be appointed to bring them to heel. That may ne as bad or worse then Saddam - again the US played a role in creating him, why assume they would not do the same again?

I remember much more beside. I remember for instance that the Kurdish nationalists in 1991 struck a deal with Saddam because they feared Kurish workers councils more then they feared him. That is another story which may yet become very relevant.

You asked a question, if I pretend to be that goldfish and I assume that everything will turn out well for the people of Iraq then indeed opposition to the war may not have been in there best interests after all. But I'm not a goldfish and in any case it is the workers of Iraq who will answer that question in the next months or years. I hope to go there at some point, when I do I will ask that question and see what answers will be given. I dougbt there will just be one.

by red alert Thu Apr 10, 2003 18:51

"ipsi phi" made the point that somehow the Red Army flying the flag over Berlin was in someway like the US in Iraq with their flag.

The difference is that the Red Army were the army of a workers state (even though it was very degenerated), and they did bring progress to the workers of Berlin. The people rejoiced when they saw the red flag, it's the flag of the workers!

by Clodagh Thu Apr 10, 2003 19:41

Before embracing the USA, Iraqis need to understand more about Americans, and realise the socio economic difficulties Americans face in their own country nevermind the socio economic difficulties faced by Iraqis now.

1)35 MILLION AMERICANS are living in Poverty.

2)45 MILLION AMERICANS have no access to health care provision.

3) 10 % of the richest Americans own 80% of Americas wealth.

4) American females earn 30% less than American males.