Saturday, February 11, 2012 9:12 am
Montgomery Blair High School's Online Student Newspaper
Tags: print
March 17, 2003

Troops enter Baghdad

by Nora Toiv, Page Editor
US forces entered Baghdad and destroyed various symbols of the regime, according to CNN. Reports unconfirmed by the Pentagon indicate that Hussein himself, as well as his sons, may have been killed in a US attack.

Meanwhile the Kurds have moved into oil rich Kirkuk. Secretary of State Colin Powell assured Turkey that the U.S had control over the city and not he Kurds. There is still fighting in Baghdad; Maj. Gen. Victor Renuart called it an “ugly place."

Many troops have been greeted by cheering crowds in Baghdad. In Firdos Square dozens of Iraqis tied a rope around a statue of Hussein while pounding on the base with sledgehammers. "We thought we were going to get a lot of resistance but we never did, so we just kept pushing and pushing until we got here," said Cpl. Steven Harris with the Marines in the square, according to CNN.

A statue of Hussein on a horse was destroyed earlier by U.S soldiers and some other symbols of his rule. "This sends a powerful message to the remnants of the regime that we can go where we want when we want," said a Pentagon official.

Fighting continued to the east of Baghdad, a red cross convoy was hit. But a U.S official told reporters that “the majority of Iraqi forces [in the Baghdad area] have now given up."

An Iraqi missile killed two journalists, one from Spain and one from Germany, and two soldiers while wounding 15 others, according to the Washington Post. David Bloom of NBC died of a pulmonary embolism, in Iraq, on April 6. Bloom was the second journalist to die from the U.S. Michael Kelly, the Atlantic Monthly editor-at-large and Washington Post columnist died in a Humvee accident on April 4.

Hussein’s cousin and Iraqi General, nicknamed “Chemical Ali" for ordering the chemical attack on the Kurds, was found dead in Basra, according to CNN.

Iraqi Information Minister Mohammed Saeed al-Sahaf said that they will not use weapons of mass destruction but that there could be widespread use of “martyrdom" by non-military people.

A combination of the terrible weather, insecure supply lines, and the unexpected level of resistance from the Iraqi’s have contributed to the war lasting longer than originally thought.

The army’s senior ground commander Lt. Gen. William S. Wallace said that an unpredictable enemy has stalled the troops drive on Baghdad. “The enemy we’re fighting is different from the one we’ve war-gamed against," he told the 101st Airborne division in Iraq.

Some of the tactics that Iraq is using surprised Wallace. “I’m appalled by the inhumanity of it all." Wallace’s response stems from reports of Hussein forcing Iraqi’s to fight by threatening their families.

U.N secretary General Kofi Annan said that he is “increasingly concerned" about the number of civilian casualties. It is uncertain as to how many deaths there have been but according to the Iraqi information minister, there have been over 100. There have been 132 deaths among the British and American troops combined.

Congress is moving to approve Bush’s $75 billion request for the war but is putting some restrictions on how the money may be used, according to the Washington Post. For instance, the $2.5 billion that was supposed to be given to the Pentagon for humanitarian relief will be given to the state department and other non-military entities. There was money added to help the struggling airlines and there was $60 billion allotted for combat.

France, Russia, Canada and Germany have all expressed their disagreement with the war. France has said that it is against any use of military force. Germany has said that they may not help with the cleanup after the war, either.

For more information on the war, go to www.cnn.com


Discuss this Article

  • 06 on March 17, 2003
    Take that international community!
  • Anran (View Email) on March 18, 2003
    *sigh*
    so at last war is all but here. quite sad, really. Bush has completely given up on any semablance of diplomacy to further his own goals. we all knew it was coming and yet, its still depressing to receive confirmation of this futility.

    -Anran
  • Saddam Hussein on March 18, 2003
    I will not leave Iraq
  • phil on March 18, 2003
    it would funny if france and germany went to iraq to fight us
  • Harry on March 18, 2003
    Last I check Germany wasn't a pernament meber of the Security Council and as such dose not have veto power.
  • Chris Mulligan (View Email) on March 18, 2003
    Only 25 hours left before Operation Oil Liberation!
  • AR freshman on March 18, 2003
    The good news is that there will be a war. The bad news is that there will be a war.
  • word on March 18, 2003
    mannnnn, bush messes everything up.
    fool!
  • SchneidmanB on March 18, 2003
    Anran,

    How can you say that diplomacy has worked? Saddam Hussein has given safehaven to terrorists, sold weapons of mass destruction to terrorists, brutally tortured and murdered his own people, and is still producing chemical weapons and looking to gain nuclear weapons. You call that peace? You're kidding, right Anran?

    -Ben
  • Bumper sticker on March 19, 2003
    To kill one american citizen is murder.
    To kill 1,000 other people is called Foreign Policy.
  • pissed off (View Email) on March 19, 2003
    Bush why do u have to go and be so stupid??? WAR is stupid and bush has got to go!
  • pissed off more on March 19, 2003
    "pissed off" why do u have to go and be so stupid??? WAR is the only way and we've got to do it!
  • disgruntled on March 19, 2003
    war is stupid. to kill one american citizen is murder. bush messes up everything. drop bush not bombs.

    Can I get a coherent, substantited reason for not going to war? Can I get somthing more then just "war is stupid?" There are no coherent substantiated reasons. unless somebody can prove me wrong.
  • estudiante on March 20, 2003
    go war!
  • mck on March 20, 2003
    ben,
    Who put saddam into office? oh the US. Who sold him weapons? yeah us again.
    where are these weapons, and why would we attack a country with them if we were so positive they had biological and chemical weapons.
  • 06student on March 20, 2003
    It's about time. Hussein is a madman, and has to be removed. We've given him over a decade to comply, and he refuses. It's time he was shown that there are consequences to what he decides and thinks.
  • God/Allah/Jehova/OyVey on March 20, 2003
    I personally am glad that Iraq will be attacked. Saddam sucks royally. And since when is Germany our friend. France sucks. I wish i could go to Iraq and personally shoot M-16 rounds at [expletive deleted] Iraqi troops.
  • Jackie Robinson on March 20, 2003
    I think that the cabinet, senate, and President are more credible and more informed than the opinions of 14-17 year old high schoolers. Go Bush.
  • Anti-Bush on March 20, 2003
    Actually, from his actions, it seems 14-17 olds are much more capable of running this country than he is.

    Bush sucks.
  • Shelby Keller on March 21, 2003
    OMG!!! I WANT TO KNOW WHAT ARE SOME PEOPLE THINKING. TO ALL ANTI-WAR LOSERS: YOU SHOULD BE ASHAMED OF YOURSELF, YOU ARE PROTEST MEN WHO GIVE THEIR FAMILIES AND LIVE UP TO SAVE YOUR ASS AND YOUR PROTEST THE FREEDOM THEY GIVE YOU TO PROTEST! IN OTHER WORDS IF YOU WERE IN ANY OTHER COUNRTY THEY WOULD SHOOT YOU! I WOULD TOO!
  • PRAISE GOD FOR PRESIDENT BUSH! on March 21, 2003
    HE IS THE GREATEST! HE IS THE ONLY PRESIDENT I HAVE SEEN DO ANYTHING GOOD FOR THIS COUNTRY! CLINTON SUCKED BIG TIME! HE GOT HIS FAME ONLY FROM MONICA, BUSH IS FOR GOD, I FOR GOD, ISRAELI FOR GOD,

    I CAN DO ALL THINGS THROUGH CHRIST WHICH STRENGTHENETH ME. PHILIPPIANS 4:13
    WE WILL NOT LOSE THIS WAR IF GOD IS ON OUR SIDE!!!!!!!!AMEN
  • smart [expletive deleted] on March 22, 2003
    Actualy Chris, its oporation Iraqi freedom. I know of no oporation oil liberation.
  • just a thought on March 23, 2003
    it's funny how opposed to war you people were when bill clinton was bombing various regions of the world, but it was different when he did it wasn't it.
  • Chris Mulligan (View Email) on March 24, 2003
    Oh right, I forgot. You haven't heard of Operation Oil Liberation, but what you don't know is that if you take the square root of the current operations acronym's (OIF) place in the alphabet, multiply that by pi, and then finally put that to the 37th power, and take the last 2 digits of that number and recovert those into letters, you get OOL. This evidence is irrefutable!
  • Jeremy Hoffman (View Email) on March 25, 2003
    I'm terrified of the future ramifications of this war. I see an entire generation of Middle Easterners growing up believing that the United States is evil incarnate. Meanwhile our supposed friends and allies will stop being so friendly and supportive.

    And this will improve our national security?

    Osama bin Laden became an active terrorist leader after the first Gulf War, because he was angry about U.S. troops stationed in Saudi Arabia.

    Sound familiar?

    How many more bin Ladens are we creating today?

    Will we have to conquer the entire Middle East before we have "security"?
  • Student on March 25, 2003
    This article was written very poorly. The journalists involved should aspire only to join the ranks of magazines such as Mother Jones or the Nation. What I am referring to is the authors' clear bias as evident in their writing style. A couple of examples: "A new U.N. resolution involving the use of force and a deadline for Iraq to disarm was tabled because Bush knew he did not have the votes," Why tabled? It was BUSH who was involved, just him, the one guy? Bush KNEW he did not have the votes? I know that it was known that the resolution would not passed, but the tone of the sentence clearly implies that the writers meant KNEW. A more appropriate sentence would be, "The United States and Britain withdrew their resolution because they were fairly confident it would not pass, " not BUSH KNEW, and tabled!
  • OutofTowner (View Email) on March 25, 2003
    I really feel sorry for all you pro-war buffs. You can say whatever the hell you want, but bush is the most incompetant president this country has ever had. His version of foreign policy is "i want more oil". With all that crap about Iraq being connected to Al-Qeada. Ha what a joke. Bin-laden has said on national television that he is opposed to dictatorial governments just as much as democratic ones! There is no reason we should have to worry about 12 pows, cuz they shouldnt be there in the first place! Saving our country is one thing, but attacking a country with hidden purposes, (which by the way, if you havnt noticed, hes trying to hide from the public) thats just retarded. Typical Bush. If he gets re-elected, im moving to Egypt.
  • AR freshman on March 25, 2003
    Hey Chris, now whose the smartass?
  • kristii on March 25, 2003
    re shelby: protesting bush's decision to send troops to iraq is not the same as protesting the troops who are in iraq. i'm 100% behind every soldier who is in the field or may be sent out there; that's exactly why im *AGAINST* war -- i want these guys to come home safe and sound, as soon as possible!!

    protesting war does not mean i'm protesting freedom; in fact, i would say that protesting war is EXERCISING my right to freedom. if everyone who dared dissent with the government's views WAS taken out and shot, this country would be no better than every authoritarian dictatorship out there.

    "I do not agree with what you say, but I will fight to the death for your right to say it." That's what being American *REALLY* means!!
  • senior on March 26, 2003
    to shelby: you really should pay attention to what kristii is saying, and then think about what you said and see how little sense it makes. well said kristii! unfortunately, shelby represents a big group of people who ignorantly insist that anti-war people are anti-military.

    it's actually kind of funny that shelby said she would shoot the anti-war people, since we are in a war against a country that has a government that does such that. so shelby, let me get this straight, you're against saddamm and his government, but you think people who express their views should be shot. again, i've got to say, please do us a favor and think about what you said and reevaluate how much sense your words really make.
  • D on March 27, 2003
    War WILL last longer than expected? It might, and it still might not.
  • desiblazer05 on March 27, 2003
    i agree with kristii, i want those guys to get back safe! but i have to say, bush does sux, he's letting innocent people get kicked out of the country. i know my nsl teacher has a student(a 05blazer) who with his family was kicked out. they have basically no income, he only recently got into school, and they barely know anyone...in Canada. [expletive deleted] bush suxs.
  • blazer06 on March 28, 2003
    well, that's dumb how you say how you would shoot all the protesters? well, how about this? war caused many innocent civillians to die...not only cilvillians but our own soliders. there are soliders that had died, been injured and are missing. and what does it matter if we protest? it's not harming anyone...we are showing our views, even though the government isnt accepting it.
  • Rob Hendryx on March 29, 2003
    Oh, you cuddly liberals! What else can I call you? You are the "caring party" after all. Blasting hatespeach all around and claiming that "14-17 olds are much more capable of running this country than he [Bush] is."

    What is wrong with you people? Just because a guy misspeeks all the time does not mean that he is less competent than some mad teenager. "Bush sux" is not an intelligent thing to say, and the only reason that he is spoken of in that way is that he is not eloquent. I think that is why I am not liberal. Democrats want a "nice" guy who speeks kindly and can butcher the language on purpose (i.e. change the definition of "is"). I'll humor you all for an instant here, but would "I invented the internet and raised 10,000 chickens" Al-gore be any better? Even if he was, let's just evaluate the decision, not the person.

    Yes, innocent people will die, but am I misinformed? I thought that innocent people would die if Jerusalem was frosted with anthrax. Maybe not. "We don't know if he has them" after all. We gave anthrax to him and he, uh, lost it. He put it in the back of his truck, but by the time he arrived at the hotel housing the UN inspectors, it wasn't there any more. Wonder where it went? Hmm... it doesn't matter.

    Get perspective people. Do you want to take the 2% chance that Saddam kills a million Israelis next week? Oh, by the way, he said he WANTS to kill "as many Israelis as possible." He has been involved in every Arab-Israeli conflict since he took office.

    Another thing, yes it does matter that people are protesting. You are sacrificing hours of education to march under a flag of blissful ignorance by walking out of school. If you walked out for religous reasons, I would applaud you. If you staged a protest on your own time, I wouuld applaud you. If you walk out on MY time for ignorant politics when your effort is HALF-HEARTED, THEN I condemn the protest. I am anti-war, but for better reasons. I don't act like I have stick up my butt every time someone disagrees with me, either. So here is my view of the reasons to avoid war: religous good, political bad.
  • kristii on March 29, 2003
    rob: i won't (dis)agree with your reasons for war, but they aren't valid reasons for the administration to consider when making war(peace) plans. war is a political game, like it or not; religion is a factor, but in a country where the church is separated from the state, political considerations far supercede it every time.

    [comment edited for offensive content]

    i'm sorry, but there is no hard evidence that saddam hussein does plan to "dust jerusalem with anthrax". there IS hard evidence, however, that americans will die in the invasion of iraq. and while we're playing the "death of innocents" card: there are millions dying right now in korea thanks to malnutrition; millions dying in africa thanks to aids; millions more dying all over the world thanks to poverty and disease and inadequate sanitation...

    if the US is really so committed to "saving the innocents," why don't we pull those troops out of iraq and use them to stop a few sub-saharan civil wars??
  • Rob Hendryx on March 30, 2003
    Hey kristii, my point is that I dislike this war. I find the anti-war side lacking, but I have religous obligations against murder. So, I'm saying if I was an atheist, I would be against the war. And religion does tie into politics because it forms political views in the minds of the people that have it.

    Sorry kristii, you're just plain wrong about Saddam wanting to kill Israelis, he has personally said that he would if he got the opportunity. That doesn't sound like a great political move but he has said (paraphrasing here), "Israel is the infidel state. We shall reclaim it for Allah." I don't quite understand his motives, since he is not a devout Muslim, but that's what he said.

    I agree with you that it is unfortunate that we cannot stop those other wars/problems, but it boils down to this: African AIDS, Korean malnutrition, and civil wars that don't effect the US or its allies has to take the backseat. Although from a human-rights standpoint those things you've listed are more important, the government's first responsibility is protecting the American people. Don't get me wrong, I would rather try to eradicate/cure/treat AIDS in Africa, but the government must first take care of things that would possibly endanger Americans. Trust me here, I oppose the war, I just want to make sure everyone knows what they're supporting. AIDS, I think, is the worst problem the world faces right now, but Bush has to be a President, not a crusading rights activist (not yet, anyway).
  • 1234 on April 1, 2003
    Rob Hendryx:
    you are a loser get a life why do you have so much time?
  • Rob Hendryx on April 1, 2003
    Not goin' to deny that one 1234. I'm sorry I don't meet your social standards. I have a lot of free time because I don't like other people and I sit at home all day and cry myself to sleep. A little sympathy for me, please.
  • we all gon die on April 5, 2003
    forget war and terrorists. SARS will kill us all anyways.
  • AR freshman on April 5, 2003
    kristii, just quit while you're ahead

    you advocate us ending a war, simply to start warring in other countries. you're even more conservative then rob and me, and george bush, and pat buchannon combined.

    I know you're probably wanting to kill me right now for twisting your words, but did you not say that "why don't we use the troops to stop a few sub saharran civil wars?" You're a crazy, conservative psycho. look, i love the war on iraq, but you're saying that you hate it, simply because you want MORE war.
  • Anarchist816 on April 17, 2003
    Overthrow the Government
  • Sticky (View Email) on July 24, 2003
    THIS IS TO EVERYONE WHO READS IT
    BE AN ANARCHIST.......HATE THE GOVENMENT., AND LIVE YOUR OWN LIFE DONT LET THE GOVENMENT LIVE IT FOR U!
  • paul lell (View Email) on October 24, 2003
    if you all think opporation iraqi freedom is about oil or revenge you are wrong it was about pretecting our country and preventing another 9/11 anyone wants to dissagree with me e-mail me!
Jump to first comment