It is speculated that the fires were by the U.S. aiming at a "target of opportunity." What that "target of opportunity" is is not yet known.

It is stressed that this isn't the beginning of the U.S.'s aerial campaign.

Latest news.

More here

Apparently the US didn't tell the UK we were going to start last night until only a couple hours before we started firing.

Also, "Saddam" came on TV after the attacks - but the prevailing thought is that the person was a double for Saddam.

Feels like 12 years ago for me...

"And so it begins" -< quote from "Babylon 5"

Not prevailing yet--There is still too much debate.

I just saw a newscaster on BET say that there are people who believe that when a speech is given, a double isn't used. They say that the real Saddam has an identifiable voice so he gives his own speeches. Even if it was the true Saddam, she added, the speech may have been recorded before the strikes.

To kind of support that, it has also been said that the Iraqi military isn't defending itself cohesively so there is question as to whether Saddam is still in power.

The other argument is that whether recorded or not, the guy we saw give the speech this morning wasn't Saddam because of a missing mole near his ear or something or another. I also heard a newscaster on ABC say there is question whether it was Saddam because the guy on the video sounded "perky."

The first coalition fatalities of the war have occurred as the result of a Marine helicopter crash. 12 British military personnel and 4 Americans were killed.

http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/03/20/sprj.irq.chopper.crash/index.html

Further reports have reduced the dead Brits to 8.

I have just been watching some Iraqis surrendering and being searched, there are plenty of stories about groups of them giving up rather than fight.

Who can blame them. It would be like throwing rocks at a panzer for the iraqies at this point.

I hope many surrender peacfully. Less death and the sooner all involved can get on with there lives. I think the Americans are very wise not to go in guns blazing. To my mind it is far more humane, and a far better tactic to give those soldiers and officials who don't want to fight an opportunity to exit the war peacfully.

Quote:

---

12 British military personnel and 4 Americans were killed

---

I sure pray (and hope for these men) that after the war (and the entire desert dug up), Dubyaman finds at least one 'Weapon of Mass Destruction' (or at least one anthrax 'cell')!


By the way, I heard Bush is planning to send tonnes of rice and wheat for the Iraqi People. What a great gesture! I believe that such acts of 'kindness and mercy' will help this world a better place!
Now is it HIS fault that dead people can't eat rice and wheat?

Sometimes you have to take a backward step before moving forward. Regardless of opinion for the rights or wrongs of this war, can anyone argue that removing this dictator and his puppets will not benefit the people of Iraq. He is burning off the countries resources as we speak, resources that belong to a country, not one man. In ten years time, if Iraq is prosperous and democratic, will it matter if they find no bio weopans?

Ace, you're skeptical about the value of this floating food that's waiting for a safe port. I'm not as skeptical as it will most likely be very neccesary, but I do wonder how it's going to be received? "Hi, we're here. Sorry for levelling Bagdhad but weve bought some biscuits, have something to eat."

We aren't "leveling Baghdad".

TV coverage made it appear that the city was being randomly blitzed, but that wasn't what was actually going on. But it was a mighty show of aerial power.

These were precise strikes at military and government targets. And we intend to continue striking such targets in the hope of forcing a surrender and ending the war as quickly as possible.

The food will be needed and probably appreciated.

We are liberating the Iraqi people from a dictator, and humanitarian aid will help to make clear that we do not wish to harm civilians and that our goal is to help them.

Surrenders are already taking place:

March 21, 2003
Iraqi Commander Surrenders to Marines, U.S. Military Says
By MICHAEL R. GORDON


CAMP DOHA, KUWAIT, MARCH 21 - The commander of Iraq's 51st division and his top deputy surrendered to United States Marine forces today, according to American military officials.

It was the first time that the commander of an Iraqi division has surrendered to allied forces. The 51st is a Regular Army unit that was deployed in southern Iraq directly in the path of the allied invasion.

American forces made a determined effort to persuade the 51st division to give in, including leaflets and propaganda broadcasts. The leaflets instructed Iraqi forces that did not want to fight to park their tanks and walk at least half a mile away. American officials said that many of the soldiers of the 51st had simply left their posts and that the division melted away.

There are indications that other Regular Army forces want to surrender or stay out of the fight. The most loyal capable forces, however, are the Republican Guards, who still seem determined to fight.

The Republican Guard forces around Baghdad were targeted in the air strikes conducted tonight.
http://nytimes.com

It is unreal to think about an actual, functioning city being bombed in this day and age. I am thinking about what it would be like for the Twin Cities to be full of smoke and explosions- nope, can't do it. Ideally, this war will be over soon, with minimum casualties. There is nothing to do now but support our troops and hope for the best.

Quote:

---

We aren't "leveling Baghdad".

---

yes, I know. It was a deliberate exaggeration used for effect on the mixed message the average Iraqi must be hearing/feeling/witnessing. As stated, I think the tactics employed so far have been superb as a show of as peaceful a resolve on a battlefield as possible. I hope the Iraqi soldiers continue to surrender. They are displaying great sense and will survive to protect a better Iraq.

I'm sure the aid will be needed, perhaps appreciated, though I'm sure it's going to take some time to win over the Iraqi people if ever. After the anti-American/coalition propaganda that they have had beaten into them over the past 50 years, they wont be running to the street waving Coalition flags like it was the 1944 liberation of France. Right or wrong, they hate us and certainly don't trust us, whatever the noble intentions. I hope the 'were only here to help' message gets through and the aid will fast track the good will. Time will tell. I only hope that the rest of the world supports in bigger numbers post war.

Quote:

---

We are liberating the Iraqi people from a dictator, and humanitarian aid will help to make clear that we do not wish to harm civilians and that our goal is to help them.

---

How about a whole lot of other countries....

1) North Korea : Aren't they suppposed to start their nuclear programme again? and their leader is more demented than anyone else in the world!

2) Pakistan : Could someone tell me what the differences between dictators of these countries are? (Oh yes, One happens to be an U.S ally; so its pardonable, I guess.)

3) Isn't China in a way a dictator? Why didn't U.S involve itself China had invaded Tibet? Why didn't U.S or any of these 'forces for good' involve itself when Tianmamen Square massacres of 1989 took place?

Bertho, I have no hassles with U.S or any one nation removing a tyrant. I appreciate their role in Afghanistan, for one!
BUT when the leader has NO evidence with respect to its claims
his intelligence wing puts up third rate forgeries and weak material at the U.N security council(as evidence of Iraq's weapons programme)
He seems more guided by the principle of Vendatta...
("After all, this is the guy....")

Why has the U.N been treated so shabbily? (I have a doubt : how did the U.N fail - it isn't its fault if U.S or its allies couldn't show conclusive evidence; it isn't fault if it doesn't want to tow the U.S line etc ).

If you were to conduct a poll in Asia right now, majority of them consider DubyaMAN a greater terrorist than Osama Bin Laden (okay it will still be the case If I remove the Moslems from this...)

See, the Gulf War (1991) was for a good cause; everyone supported the military action. After the war got over, the U.S decided to stick on in Saudi Arabia. (Now now, I am NOT against it; the colletaral (?) damage being in the creation of a "Osama Bin Laden"! Talking of him, where is he ?)

Right now we are in this war, and I, personally, don't want to rehash the reasons why. I just want us to win it and have it over with with as little loss of life as possible.

I think it might be a little naive to believe that more nations joined in the Gulf War because that one was for "a good cause". Nations do whatever is in their own best interests at the time. All sorts of deals are struck and loads of money and support changes hands in order to get backing for a coalition--and that was true in 1991. It was not just a case of everyone recognizing a good cause. This time around some of those parties--who joined us in 1991--just have different self interests in 2003.

Anyway, right now this isn't Bush's war. The British and Australians and the Poles are fighting along with the Americans.
Let's just wish them well.

After this one is over then we can talk about some of the other problem areas in the world.

Ace, there is a thread in C.I.--Is The U.N. Finished? Why not throw your two cents into that thread since you have some ideas on the issue of how the U.N. has been treated. I'd like to read more of what you have to say on that issue, but I'm not sure that this thread is the place to pursue that.

It's also nice to know that not everyone hates us right now:

Iraqi villagers welcome U.S. troops
Villagers: 'Saddam, your days are numbered'

SAFWAN, Iraq (CNN) --Videotape shot by Kuwaiti TV crews Friday showed about a dozen villagers, most of them adult men, warmly welcoming American soldiers who arrived and briefly took up positions in the village of Safwan.

The men, a few children, and one woman spoke to at least three soldiers who got out of their vehicles. Many shook the soldiers' hands or embraced them, and some kissed the soldiers' cheeks.

"God bless you, thank you very much," said some of the villagers, according to translations by Kuwaiti TV.

"We do not want the oil. Take it. Take it. But build the country. We want to live, we want to travel, we want to walk. It cannot always be the pressure of war, war, destruction, destruction," one villager said. "Enough, enough. We are fed up, fed up. Long live the soldiers."

About a dozen other Iraqis watched from a distance.

The soldiers were seen arriving in at least three armored vehicles and one truck; two helicopters flew by in the distance.

At one point, a soldier tore large pieces from a large poster of Saddam Hussein, the Iraqi president.

One villager took off his sandal and repeatedly hit what remained of the painting of Saddam's face.

The one woman spoke emotionally to the soldiers for a few moments, but it was not clear which comments were hers.

The tape showed a group of about eight adult men and children dancing and singing, "Saddam, your days are numbered. Saddam, your days are numbered."
http://cnn.com

Quote:

---

.. have it over with with as little loss of life as possible.

---

Couldn't agree more with you on that count (and ONLY on that count..)

I just hope Dubyaman lets the Iraqi people decide their course (Please NOT a puppet government!)

By the way, I would put the Iraqi people shouting "Down with Saddam" on the same boat with the people shouting "Long Live Saddam"!

Propoganda at its BEST!

(P.s: While I don't want you to "rehash the reasons", could you please explain the "Pakistani" part of my query?)

We need Pakistan's help right now. "Diplomacy"--and national interests--make for strange bedfellows.

Ace, I personally had great misgivings about this war at this time. But, since the battle has begun, I can only hope for a swift victory and minimal loss of life. For me, there is no point discussing the reasons for the war any more, or whether it was justified. The war is here. I accept that.

Let's win it first, then discuss, and see, what will happen in Iraq.

Two British helicopters collide killing six Brits plus an American. The cause of the accident is not being given, one helicopter was coming into land on the aircraft carrier Ark Royal, the other was taking off from the same ship - they collided five miles out in good visibility. Both helicopters were surveliance helicopters, absolutely bristling with radar equipment, but they couldn't see each other.