Yesterday marked the Sixth Anniversary of the fall of Baghdad.
I can recall photos of Firdous Square — where Iraqi’s cheered as Saddam Hussein’s statue was toppled on April 9, 2003. Today their citizens participate in “free and fair elections in Iraq, a direct result of the Bush doctrine.”
While many will argue about the foreign policy job performance of former president George Bush 43 the nation of Iraq has been freed from the iron fist of dictator Saddam Hussein.
Let me recap some of the atrocities committed by Saddam Hussein against his neighbors and his own people prior to our involvement in that war:
“Hussein’s regime killed, tortured, raped and terrorized the Iraqi people and its neighbors for over two decades.
Hundreds of thousands of people died as a result of Saddam’s actions.
Saddam had approximately 40 of his own relatives murdered.
1980-88: Iran-Iraq war left 150,000 to 340,000 Iraqis and 450,000 to 730,000 Iranians dead.
1983-1988: Documented chemical attacks by Iraqi regime caused some 30,000 Iraqi and Iranian deaths.
1988: Chemical attack on Kurdish village of Halabja killed approximately 5,000 people.
1987-1988: Iraqi regime used chemical agents in attacks against at least 40 Kurdish villages.
1990-91: 1,000 Kuwaitis were killed in Iraqi invasion of Kuwait.
1991: Bloody suppression of Kurdish and Shi’a uprisings in northern and southern Iraq killed at least 30,000 to 60,000. At least 2,000 Kurdish villages were destroyed during the campaign of terror.”
The real question, that future generations will still be debating, will be our military involvement in that country.
Is it our role to export Democracy around the globe?
Were we selective in which countries warranted our involvement while others, such as the Darfur region of Sudan, where (according to UN statistics) upwards of 300,000 have died from genocide, are overlooked?
Did Saddam Hussein con all of us, along with his own Generals, regarding his having WMD even though there is surely evidence to support his using same against the Kurds in 1987/1988 as confirmed above?
” The US Senate and the House of Representatives stated in the Oct. 2, 2002 “Joint Resolution to Authorize the Use of Military Action Towards Iraq”:
“Whereas in 1998 Congress concluded that Iraq’s continuing weapons of mass destruction programs threatened vital United States interests and international peace and security, declared Iraq to be in ‘material and unacceptable breach of its international obligations’ and urged the President ‘to take appropriate action, in accordance with the Constitution and relevant laws of the United States, to bring Iraq into compliance with its international obligations’ (Public Law 105-235); Whereas Iraq both poses a continuing threat to the national security of the United States and international peace and security in the Persian Gulf region and remains in material and unacceptable breach of its international obligations by, among other things, continuing to possess and develop a significant chemical and biological weapons capability, actively seeking a nuclear weapons capability, and supporting and harboring terrorist organizations”
Oct. 2, 2002 – Joint Resolution to Authorize the Use of United States Armed Forces Against Iraq (36 KB)
Following is part of an Associated Press account of this Sixth Anniversary.
6th anniversary of the fall of Baghdad
Anti-U.S. Shiite cleric supporters rally
Updated: Thursday, 09 Apr 2009, 11:47 AM MDT
Published : Thursday, 09 Apr 2009, 8:55 AM MDT
SAMEER N. YACOUB, Associated Press Writer BAGHDAD (AP) – Tens of thousands of supporters of an anti-American Shiite cleric burned an effigy of ex-President George W. Bush on Thursday and demanded that U.S. troops leave Iraq in a rally marking the sixth anniversary of the fall of Baghdad to U.S. forces.
Cleric Muqtada al-Sadr, whose militia fought U.S. troops intermittently until a cease-fire last May, had called on Iraqis to turn out for the protest at Firdous Square — where Saddam Hussein’s statue was toppled on April 9, 2003.
Protesters set fire to American flags and to Bush’s effigy as it hung from the pillar where Saddam’s statue once stood.
“We demand that President Obama stand with the Iraqi people by ending the occupation to fulfill his promises he made to the world,” al-Sadr aide Assad al-Nassiri told the crowd.
Salah al-Obeidi, spokesman for the movement, said the slight change in tone — including the reference to Obama as president — represented an overture to the new administration. Obama ran for the presidency as a staunch critic of the 2003 invasion.
“We see some change in Obama’s language,” al-Obeidi told The Associated Press. “It seems to us that Obama does not want to use Iraq as a base to fight al-Qaida.”
Obama has pledged to remove all combat troops by September 2010 and the rest of the U.S. force by the end of 2011.
During a brief stop in Iraq on Tuesday, Obama told American troops at a base on the edge of Baghdad that “need to take responsibility for their own country.”
At the rally, al-Nassiri read a statement from al-Sadr, who lives in Iran, describing the U.S. military presence as a “crime against all Iraqis.” Al-Sadr asked God to grant Iraqis a sovereign country “free from wicked occupation.”
Al-Sadr suffered a setback last May when his Mahdi Army militia lost control of strongholds in Basra and the Sadr City district of Baghdad in weeks of fighting with U.S. and Iraqi forces.
One of the protesters, Ammar Mahdi, 23, said he walked five miles (eight kilometers) to join the rally to demand the “immediate withdrawal of the U.S. soldiers who brought destruction to Iraq instead of freedom.”
The protest against the U.S. presence contrasted with the jubilation of six years ago, when crowds of Iraqis cheered as American Marines hauled down Saddam’s statue marking the collapse of his regime.
But the years of violence, bloodshed and political turmoil that followed soured many Iraqis on the U.S. role, even though there is public unease over the capability of Iraqi forces to maintain security once the Americans have gone.
“I am among those who were glad when the former regime fell. We chanted and cheered,” said Hashim Mohsen, a Baghdad schoolteacher who did not attend the rally. “We thought new loyal people were leading the country into a new prosperous era. But regrettably, there is not what occurred.”
To read the entire Associated Press report simply go to the following link:
*Sunni’s & Shias…..wow, seems like it was only yesterday when that Statue fell. Remember how they kept finding Billions of US Dollars buried all around the country? The Statue fell, but it took a while to get Uday and Quesay – on July 22, 2003! Saddam didn’t get caught until December 14th, 2003. The Mahdi Army? Shi-ite
Muqtada al-Sadr….and Grand Ayatolla Al Sistani…Hakim…all of them. Where are they now?
The sacrifice of our nearly 5000 troops and the uncountable injuries….tell us that we cannot leave this place unless there is some semblance of stability.
The United States has made history…now we have to live with it!
Larry, you forgot to mention that all of Saddam’s “action’s” were done WITH U.S. approval,help and/or knowledge.
Our attack on Iraq was a CALCULATED, COLD BLOODED, MURDEROUS play for POWER, nothing more.
The worst “investment” of American lives and treasure ever.
Some people don’t appreciate freedom and its cost.
If you clowns were for peace in the middle east, you would have parked your cars and walked for peace.
cook, you can BUY and SELL commodities WITHOUT KILLING people, it’s ONLY when you want to STEAL or CONTROL another country’s natural resources that you declare an UNPROVOKED WAR on them.
“Is it our role to export Democracy around the globe?”
Well those on the right absolutely LOVE to point to the Constitution to guide us (when it fits their agenda, of course), so if you can find it in the Constitution that it’s specifically our role in the world to topple dictators, I’ll get on board.
#6 anon.
Did you read the entire text of my post including the following:
“Oct. 2, 2002 – Joint Resolution to Authorize the Use of United States Armed Forces Against Iraq”
Without verfiying the numbers of votes cast and by whom I would argue that more Democrats were in Congress than Repulbicans when the above vote to take action was approved.
Or did I make it all up?????
Larry,
Votes in favor of the Iraq War Resolution;
In the House:
Republicans; 215
Democrats; 82
In the Senate:
Republicans; 48
Democrats; 29
Regardless of the total party makeup of Congress, the Iraq War Resolution was passed largely by Republicans. Out of a total of 270 Republicans in the House and Senate, 7 voted against the measure. Seven.
But so what? Even if more Democrats voted in favor, it’s still not Constitutionally-mandated for this country to arbitrarily topple dictators.
So to sum up; wrong if the Republicans did it, wrong if the Democrats did it.
“So to sum up; wrong if the Republicans did it, wrong if the Democrats did it.”
Perfectly legal.
anon.
Yes, we did have control of the House at that time. There is another active post where I realized that fact.
However, Cook sums this up rather well.
Let’s cut to the chase. No one wants to send American servicemen and servicewomen into battle.
I wonder how you felt when FDR sent Americans into Europe prior to our being attacked by the Axis powers.
Anon. These are policy decisions above both of our pay grades.
anon. In my comment above our being attacked refers to transport ships sending war materials to the UK that were attacked by German U-boats.
Cook,
Legal does not equal right.