The toppling of Saddam's statue was staged according to U.S. Army

Who cares if it was staged?!!?

So was Iwojima.

So was the beginning of the Berlin Wall (did you think it was 100% spontaneous? Oh, that explains the heavy equipment knocking the first holes in it.)

So was the moon landing.

The parts you see replayed over and over is the media's doing, not the government's... remember "free speech" and "freddom of press?"





Most "historical moments" caught on film were by no means spontaneous civilian uprisings that just happened by coincidence.

I think we ALL need to ADMIT that point.... c'mon..

 

How about Bush's good buddy Tony Blair:

Meanwhile in Britain, the official spokesman of Tony Blair said the prime minister had watched television images of U.S. troops entering central Baghdad and toppling a statue of Saddam, and was "delighted" at the reaction of the Iraqi people.

"It shows what the ordinary people thought of Saddam and just how much of a burden his rule has placed on them," said the spokesman, briefing reporters on customary condition of anonymity. "We have seen today the scales of fear falling from the people of Iraq."

 

How about you come down to reality first? I seems you have been living in an alternate universe.

1. a. YOu description of Clinton's Korea policy appears to be post hoc opinions on your part, but what makes your take look really silly is the following:

b. Bush's current offer to North Korea is essentially the same deal that Clinton gave them in 1994!

http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/asiapcf/06/24/nkorea.talks/

Energy aid (Which, I am assuming, is going to cost $), plus pledge not to attack, with international monitors. Sound familiar?

In any event, if you want a good summary of Bush's bungled, schizophrenic NK policy, read Fred Kaplans article here:

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2004/0405.kaplan.html

Otherwise, I think your current understanding of it ("Bush just basically called them to be reasonable?") is a little bit lacking


2. I'm not sure I understand your point; I do know that Clinton's attacks in 1998 don't appear to have drawn the same degree of ire globally that Bush's invasion and occupation did. I also know that North Korea hasn't backed off sh-t since the invasion of Iraq -- if anything, rogue nations like Iran and North Korea have accelerated their bombmaking, in order to be able to extract more concessions than Libya did.

 

It was not an American troop that was slapping the Saddam statue with his shoe.


That was ordinary people.


Again this is about the response. NOT the toppling itself.


Reading comprehension much?

 

Here's the difference: No one ever said, random hobos in Iwo Jima erect American flag... In the news tonight, astronomy club from Houston lands rocket on the moon...
And there weren't US army officers piling kids on top of a tank to knock down the Berlin wall.
Read it again...

Army Stage-Managed Fall of Hussein Statue

The Army's internal study of the war in Iraq (news - web sites) criticizes some efforts by its own psychological operations units, but one spur-of-the-moment effort last year produced the most memorable image of the invasion.

As the Iraqi regime was collapsing on April 9, 2003, Marines converged on Firdos Square in central Baghdad, site of an enormous statue of Saddam Hussein (news - web sites). It was a Marine colonel — not joyous Iraqi civilians, as was widely assumed from the TV images — who decided to topple the statue, the Army report said. And it was a quick-thinking Army psychological operations team that made it appear to be a spontaneous Iraqi undertaking.

After the colonel — who was not named in the report — selected the statue as a "target of opportunity," the psychological team used loudspeakers to encourage Iraqi civilians to assist, according to an account by a unit member.

But Marines had draped an American flag over the statue's face.

"God bless them, but we were thinking … that this was just bad news," the member of the psychological unit said. "We didn't want to look like an occupation force, and some of the Iraqis were saying, 'No, we want an Iraqi flag!' "

Someone produced an Iraqi flag, and a sergeant in the psychological operations unit quickly replaced the American flag.

Ultimately, a Marine recovery vehicle toppled the statue with a chain, but the effort appeared to be Iraqi-inspired because the psychological team had managed to pack the vehicle with cheering Iraqi children.

The Army's internal study of the war in Iraq (news - web sites) criticizes some efforts by its own psychological operations units, but one spur-of-the-moment effort last year produced the most memorable image of the invasion.

As the Iraqi regime was collapsing on April 9, 2003, Marines converged on Firdos Square in central Baghdad, site of an enormous statue of Saddam Hussein (news - web sites). It was a Marine colonel — not joyous Iraqi civilians, as was widely assumed from the TV images — who decided to topple the statue, the Army report said. And it was a quick-thinking Army psychological operations team that made it appear to be a spontaneous Iraqi undertaking.


After the colonel — who was not named in the report — selected the statue as a "target of opportunity," the psychological team used loudspeakers to encourage Iraqi civilians to assist, according to an account by a unit member.


But Marines had draped an American flag over the statue's face.


"God bless them, but we were thinking … that this was just bad news," the member of the psychological unit said. "We didn't want to look like an occupation force, and some of the Iraqis were saying, 'No, we want an Iraqi flag!' "


Someone produced an Iraqi flag, and a sergeant in the psychological operations unit quickly replaced the American flag.


Ultimately, a Marine recovery vehicle toppled the statue with a chain, but the effort appeared to be Iraqi-inspired because the psychological team had managed to pack the vehicle with cheering Iraqi children.link

 

It was STILL obviously the American machinery that did the toppling.

If we (I mean everyone up in the air over this) are just now realizing that, then get glasses, or use some brain power.


This is really NOT upsetting to anyone who saw it live.

It was always obvious that WE pulled it down.

THERE IS NO CONSPIRACY!!! Dad gum it! Cheese and Rice!! Get a grip people.... Dag nab it!



I think I'll write a book on the shocking ability of the media to both create the perspective AND then turn it back against their original hero.

Everybody hates Spiderman at some point of the movie, right?

I give up... WHOA to You U.S. Army!! You Bush-led statue toppling stagers you!!

Shame on you for picking a "target of opportunity" to boost troop morale and try for a better climate in which to conclude a mission.

DOOM ON YOU! DOOM ON YOU!

 

In your opinion.


And if the American voter is that stupid, well then God help us all.


My vote has never been based on photo ops and political media play.

The outcry does suggest however that the "majority here in opposition" of said events...


Was at least temporarily duped.

Sad really.

 

IROC it - If dismantling plutonium production capabilities (some of which we weren't even aware of prior to 1993) is considered "alling their nuclear research and development" then yes, you are correct.

We allowed them to pursue light water reactors (which could not be used to produce plutonium and enrich uranium to the extent that the products could be used in a nuclear warhead) for civilian energy production.

You really ought to look at some primary sources and documents. This was considered a diplomatic coup -- we had negotiated a peaceful resolution with a regime that was regarded as un-negotiable by the state departments of the four previous administrations (Republicans and Democrats alike)!!

Again, the book by Wit, Gallucci and Poneman is fantastic reading by the chief American player in the operation. It is not only an insider's look into the crisis, but also heavily researched and documented.

 

Then the real problem is the education system. Still sad.