Iraqi violence flares, even after Saddam

[DeaconBlues]

Fresh violence Tuesday showed Saddam Hussein (news - web sites)'s capture offered no quick solution to Iraq (news - web sites)'s woes, but U.S. leaders hoped it would help win global allies for their plan to speed up Iraqi self-government...

In Saddam's home town Tikrit, one of several Sunni Muslim cities where his supporters have vented rage at his humiliating capture in a dirt hole Saturday, a roadside bomb wounded three U.S. soldiers Tuesday....

The cities of Falluja and nearby Ramadi also saw pro-Saddam riots overnight. U.S. troops said they came under fire in a spate of attacks and killed five Iraqis. Witnesses said hundreds of people stormed the U.S.-appointed mayor's office in Falluja.


The attacks came in the heartland of Saddam support north and west of Baghdad, home to the Sunni minority that has long dominated Iraq. Most Iraqis, however, celebrated the demise of the man who ruled them with an iron fist for three decades.... (more)

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=578&ncid=578&e=1&u=/nm/20031216/ts_nm/iraq_dc

[izzie]

1. Well what else?

I think we will keep him, this is not as cut and dry as I am sure Bush and co thought.Every thing seems to be half and half in this country and much of the rest of the world do not seem to like things Bush thinks. I do believe they, in the WH, read all most every thing wrong.The world and the US people were behind the thoughts of just how bad 911 was but it all stops there. Bush did every thing wrong after that and things are not going well.We do seem to have lost our way or the leaders have.

[Just Me]

12. Yeah,...there was an over-reaction to Saddam,...

,...and how relevant his capture would really be upon matters in Iraq.

[zubeneshamali]

2. Noone has said that Saddam's capture would bring an end to violence

in Iraq or elsewhere. I haven't heard of anyone - except the media themselves - who have suggested that Saddam's capture is being seen as some sort of "quick solution to Iraq."

You might be reading more into this story than is really there.

[DeaconBlues]

3. How can you say I'm reading anything into anything

when my post consists entirely of text from the original story?

[markses]

4. BEEP BEEP - Talking Point Talking Point Talking Point - BEEP BEEP

No one suggested (in April) that we'd see a full-fledged insurgency, and still be losing troops to hostile fire at Christmas.

The implication of calling the insurgency "Ba'athist dead enders" for several months is that they will soon stop once the gig is up. But it's transformed into something beyond that - if it ever was that.

I don't believe a fucking word coming from the mouths of the so-called experts - in the Pentagon or elsewhere. Why should I? They've been as consistently wrong as they can be.

"No one suggested..." Indeed! Why anyone should give a damn what the Pentagon or any other affiliates of the war-mongers should suggest is a mystery for the ages.

[DUreader]

5. Pill Freak Rush Limbo Said It

You May Not Have Heard Him Because He Was Sucking W*'s Cheney* At The Time

[havocmom]

6. the much used term 'Saddam loyalists' comes to mind

continually bantered about the media, which is only a megaphone for the maladministration, as US troop casualities kept mounting. The people of Iraq will welcome liberation. When they didn't welcome being invaded by a foreign power and fought back, they were loyalist insurgenants. Somehow, any displeasure at the US presence was blamed on Saddam's men.

Well, they don't have Saddam as the scape goat anymore, so who are they gonna blame it on now?

Fact is, Saddam was our man. Most Iraqis probably know that. Then we show up to punish the US employee who struck out on his own. We devestated what infastructure they had left, killed and maimed an obscene number of innocents then, when they fought to defend their homes, our officials write them off as pro-Saddam insurgants!?!?
:wtf:

Ever occure to anyone in the WH that there are people brave enough to actually jump into a battle to defend their homes? Too much of a stretch for the Chicken Hawks? They have been blaming it all on Saddam and they are forced to change the tune.

By the way, how much $$ has the bush* corporate sponsers made on this little venture which costs the average citizens of the US and Iraq so dearly in resources and the blood of innocents?

[Stuckinthebush]

7. Certainly it has been implied

Both in the media and by the administration. Even some of the pro-war Dem candidates are making noises condemning anti-war Dems now that Saddam is captured. These condemnations are based in the theory that the violence will significantly decline now.

[Tempest]

8. Actually, Rumsfeld and Cheney both said it

They both stated that Saddam's capture would convince the Baath party "dead-enders" to give up the fight.

Oops.

[Cush]

9. CNN forgot to mention this (wounded US)

they said there were skirmishes, but no injuries, except for 11 dead Iraqi's

[nolabels]

10. A candy coated version from Yahoo, try the UK Independent for....

a another view. * has making more a mess of things everyday as far as I can see.

http://www.antiwar.com/
http://news.independent.co.uk/world/middle_east/story.jsp?story=473738
Meanwhile, in Iraq the slaughter goes on
By Andrew Buncombe

16 December 2003
(snip)
Colonel Hamad Ghazban, another Iraqi officer, said of the attackers: "These are al-Qa'ida people. Saddam does not have the power to do these kinds of things. His ability is too weak. Last night we saw him in a hole."

Just hours before, in the Ameriyah neighbourhood of the city, eight policemen were injured when a suicide bomber detonated his vehicle packed with explosives at about 8am. The attack would have been much worse had Iraqi police and US Military Police not fired at a second explosives-laden vehicle that was following the first car. That intervention prevented the second vehicle from ramming into the station, and the driver fled the scene without detonating his device. He was later captured.

Brigadier General Mark Hertling of the US Army said: "Right now, we don't know what the target was. It goes with the intelligence we had yesterday, that there would be several . We dodged a couple of bullets in Baghdad."

Yesterday's attacks appear to undermine the views of those who said that Saddam and his so-called "Baathist hold-outs" have been behind the wave of attacks against US targets. Even President George Bush predicted yesterday that there would be continuing violence. "The terrorists in Iraq remain dangerous. The work of our coalition remains difficult and will require further sacrifice," he said at a press conference in Washington.
(snip)

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

11. kick