Past EED rants


Live leaderboard

Poker leaderboard

Voice of EED

Saturday 5 April 2003

B-Day [lurks]

B is for Baghdad. While BBC News is characteristically behind the ball, there are numerous reports reports that the Coalition pushed into the centre of Baghdad at the crack of dawn this morning. The Pentagon says that significant forces remain the the centre of Baghdad.

'As of this morning, coalition forces are actually in the city of Baghdad,' said Navy Capt. Frank Thorp. 'As we moved into the city, we saw sporatic fighting, we've actually moved through the republican guard divisions to pretty much the center of the city. We have substantial forces now moving into the city.'

This, of course, is marvellous news. The lack of a coordinated resistance from the Special/Elite Republican Guard would appear to alleviate fears of a lengthy siege of Baghdad. So much for the 'unconventional attack' that the Iraqi Ridiculous Rhetoric Minister came out with yesterday.
Once again most of the news media are putting their own spin on things but I was cheered somewhat to read this excellent piece in the Guardian. Here's a heartening extract;

The apparent collapse of the Republican Guard was matched yesterday by the visible collapse of popular Iraqi belief in the possibility of Saddam's survival.

As the marines' 1st Division poured towards Baghdad along the Highway 7 dual carriageway yesterday, preceded by a rolling storm of artillery shells, cluster bombs and missiles, Iraqis by the road - predominantly young men - cheered, waved and gave the thumbs-up sign.

As I'm watching writing this, I'm seeing some footage from embedded reports now within Baghdad with coalition troops. The editorial has just spoken of it being a surprisingly normal day. Traffic is normal, busses are running and shops are open. That's just spooky!
Of course the lefty extremists are keeping it up. On the day that the coalition pushes into Baghdad with the ultimate goal of liberating Iraqi with the remarkable and unexpectedly light civilian casualties (1,200 estimated) - scumbags like the Daily Mail suddenly 'neglect' to cover the conflict and devote their front page to the home office's (welcome) move to throw out Abu Hamza. Two-faced twats.
Thus begins what I predicted all along. Suddenly key proponents of the anti-war brigade will suddenly go very quiet. However I think it more appropriate to extract pleasure from the swift fall of Baghdad than any 'I told you so' smugness.


  1. Some lefties yesterday were adamant that the seizure of Saddam Intl was a lie and there were no Coalition forces anywhere near Baghdad. Have these people become completely disconnected from reality or what?

  2. Whackos. They actually take the Ridiculous Rhetoric minister at his word or something?I see some media now are basically saying 'Well we can't see tanks from our building (the information ministry building where they're based) so they're not in the centre' line. Which is a bit mad because you can see the artillary and smoke rising just a couple of clicks away. They're drawing diagrams of the city and saying here's where we think the forces are etc. Madness, why don't you tell the Iraqis their every move why don't you? Oh you are? Silly me!Note: Gordon on UK Gamer list rightly took issue with my choice of words when I first posted the blog. So I changed it to say unexpectedly light rather than wonderfully light civilian casualties.As I watch events unfold now on News 24, we've got the ridiculous spectacle of the Iraqi 'information' minister claiming that coalition forces are surrounded by Iraqi forces and that the Republican Guard have retaken the airport. This would be amusing enough were it not for the fact that the windows are starting to shake with the sound of approach artillary fire. At what point will this moron admit the game is up, when they jack boot the door in?

  3. Indeed it is excellent news if true, that Baghdad is pretty much an open city.
    Strange of the Daily Mail to change coverage to Hamza though - I haven't been reading inside papers recently, but a review of the front pages for the last 2 weeks every day convinced me that only the Mirror was vehemently anti-war, and that the Mail and Express were surprisingly pro-war, maybe I just caught it wrong.
    Despite my objections to the causes of war it does have to be said the coalition has done a remarkable military job - I hope they can be just as strong and efficient in running the country and educating the people about democracy.

  4. Afty you may have it right there about the Mail and Mirror. I couldn't remember which one it was that was anti-war. The one that's the second biggest seller behind the Sun if I recall correctly.
    Concerning running the country after the fact. The words from the coalition seem to indicate a rapid movement to the Iraqis governing themselves which is as it should be. To be honest I can somewhat understand the US' point-of-view of being quite reticent about the UN's involvement in that process. After all, they wouldn't step up and sort out Saddam - how does that qualify them for sorting out the country post Saddam? I don't think it does and the least meddling in Iraqi affairs the better.
    If the coalition set up the government by themselves, so long as it's done properly and promptly, I wont have a problem with it. I fail to see how a hideously fragmented and bent security council is of much value to Iraq when the war is over. God only knows what the French have in mind.