Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

S Monkey · Mar 21, 2003, 06:02 AM

http://story.news.yahoo.com/fc?cid=3...World&cat=Iraq

Bad idea. It makes the operation look like a conquest.

kvm_mkdb · Mar 21, 2003, 06:04 AM

Originally posted by S Monkey:
http://story.news.yahoo.com/fc?cid=3...World&cat=Iraq

Bad idea. It makes the operation look like a conquest.

It is conquest.

Mastrap · Mar 21, 2003, 06:06 AM

It's also standard procedure IIRC. You'll have to let people know who's in control.

willed · Mar 21, 2003, 06:26 AM

Hurrah!

Sealobo · Mar 21, 2003, 06:43 AM

Originally posted by Mastrap:
It's also standard procedure IIRC. You'll have to let people know who's in control.

Yup, the US controls the moon, too.

Personally, i don't think it's a good idea.

Logic · Mar 21, 2003, 08:18 AM

I thought they were going to give the control back to the Iraqi people. But maybe their next flag will be the US flag. I'm sure the muslim world will be happy with this

Spliffdaddy · Mar 21, 2003, 09:27 AM

If we want to keep Iraq - we will.

Reckon that's how this war thing works.

If Iraq wins, will they give America back?

HAHAHAHAHA

SimeyTheLimey · Mar 21, 2003, 10:00 AM

Originally posted by Logic:
I thought they were going to give the control back to the Iraqi people. But maybe their next flag will be the US flag. I'm sure the muslim world will be happy with this

<Eddie Izzard>Do you have a flag?</Eddie Izzard>

Ever seen the picture? Are you going to tell me that those Marines should have raised the Japanese Flag because Iwo Jima was a Japanese island?

An Iraqi flag will fly over all of Iraq again. But not until after the war when there is a new Iraqi government.

Logic · Mar 21, 2003, 10:12 AM

I just heard that they were told to take the flag down. Some senior officials say that they don't want to be viewed as invaders and occupiers.

Simey:
This war is about the "liberation" of the Iraqi people. WWII was an all out war. I have nothing against that they raised their flag at that time. But now, as this is about "liberation" it is not appropriate.

SimeyTheLimey · Mar 21, 2003, 10:18 AM

Originally posted by Logic:
Simey:
This war is about the "libertation" of the Iraqi people. WWII was an all out war. I have nothing against that they raised their flag at that time. But now, as this is about "liberation" it is not appropriate.

US, British, and Canadian troops liberating France raised their national flags (as well as the tricolor). Of course, in that case there was a government in exile, so raising the tricolor wasn't confusing in any way.

Similarly, when those same allied troops began taking terrirory in Germany, they raised their national flags again. They did not raise the German flag and I would not expect US or British troops to raise the Iraqi flag in Iraq at this time. To expect that would be obtuse.

The US does not conquer territory. The German flag (or rather a new German flag) flew over Germany after it was occupied. An Iraqi flag will fly again over Iraq.

Oh, and the commanders on the scene may be being sensitive to appearances, but they are wrong. It's not the commanders who are in harms way, it's the ordinary soldiers. Let them fly their flag.

Logic · Mar 21, 2003, 10:22 AM

Simey I will not argue with you. You just don't to see the difference with WWII and this. This argument will get us nowhere.

villalobos · Mar 21, 2003, 10:28 AM

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
Similarly, when those same allied troops began taking terrirory in Germany, they raised their national flags again. They did not raise the German flag and I would not expect US or British troops to raise the Iraqi flag in Iraq at this time. To expect that would be obtuse.

But Germany was the aggressor in WWII case. In this case, Irak has NOT attacked, i repeat, Irak has not attacked the US beforehand..... Oh and no they were NO irakis amongst 9/11 highjackers. I have the feeling there is a slight confusion on the subject in the US these days.

WWII and this war are different. WWII WAS legitimate.

Villa

RAILhead · Mar 21, 2003, 10:36 AM

Good crap, people, if I was man enough to be doing what those Allied Troops are doing and I "took" the port like they did -- with my own a$$ on the line -- you better freakin' believe I'd raise my country's flag.

Why? To let everyone know that the area is no longer being controlled by Iraqi forces. When the regime is no longer in existence, the Iraqi flag will fly again. This really isn't a difficult concept to grasp.

Maury

Logic · Mar 21, 2003, 10:38 AM

dp

Logic · Mar 21, 2003, 10:39 AM

Originally posted by RAILhead:
Good crap, people, if I was man enough to be doing what those Allied Troops are doing and I "took" the port like they did -- with my own a$$ on the line -- you better freakin' believe I'd raise my country's flag.

So you are telling us that you are not man enough to stand up for your beliefs?

Oh, and the port isn't secured yet, so hold your horses.

SimeyTheLimey · Mar 21, 2003, 10:42 AM

Originally posted by villalobos:
But Germany was the aggressor in WWII case. In this case, Irak has NOT attacked, i repeat, Irak has not attacked the US beforehand..... Oh and no they were NO irakis amongst 9/11 highjackers. I have the feeling there is a slight confusion on the subject in the US these days.

WWII and this war are different. WWII WAS legitimate.

Villa

This isn't a discussion of legitimacy of how we came to be here. All I'm saying is what Mastrap said above: when soldiers capture territory, they raise the flag.

Try to see beyond your political objections to the point of view of the soldiers in the field.

RAILhead · Mar 21, 2003, 10:43 AM

o you are telling us that you are not man enough to stand up for your beliefs?

Yeah, that's exactly what I said.

Good mother...

Logic · Mar 21, 2003, 10:49 AM

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
This isn't a discussion of legitimacy of how we came to be here. All I'm saying is what Mastrap said above: when soldiers capture territory, they raise the flag.

Try to see beyond your political objections to the point of view of the soldiers in the field.

This has nothing to do with my opinion of the legality of this occupation or my political opinion on this matter.

They are raising a foreign flag on Arab land. And now you are saying that they captured the territory. I thought you were liberating the Iraqis, well it seems like I was wrong.

I have nothing against them having the US or UK flags on their vehicles or equipment, that I strongly support. But going back to the "We have a flag" mentality is a step back.

I don't remember were I heard this but I think it is appropriate:

History is the symptom of our disease.

SimeyTheLimey · Mar 21, 2003, 11:03 AM

Originally posted by Logic:
This has nothing to do with my opinion of the legality of this occupation or my political opinion on this matter.

They are raising a foreign flag on Arab land. And now you are saying that they captured the territory. I thought you were liberating the Iraqis, well it seems like I was wrong.

I have nothing against them having the US or UK flags on their vehicles or equipment, that I strongly support. But going back to the "We have a flag" mentality is a step back.

I don't remember were I heard this but I think it is appropriate:

History is the symptom of our disease.

From your comments above, it does sound like your political opinion of the war is coloring this issue. I think there is also a little bit of misunderstanding perhaps relating to the fact that you haven't served and therefore perhaps don't understand the way I'm using terminology.

When troops seize an objective, it is called "capturing territory." The terms has nothing to do with the legal question of ultimate ownership. When free French soldiers seized objectives in occupied France, they captured territory. Of course, legally, it was theirs all along.

By the same standard, the troops on the ground in these engagements were given orders to seize an objective - in this case a port. They did so successfully, and thus that port has been captured. It's not a political statement, it's a hard fact on the ground. That port is now in allied hands, and thus is denied to the enemy. Whether or not there is a flag flying hardly changes that reality, but it is important to the troops as a symbol of their (very local) victory.

You have to remember, that troops view these things differently. They aren't watching this unfold on a BBC screen. They have an ant's eye view of all of this. They get their operation order, and they act on it. But it is all very local and immediate from their point of view. The big picture is something you can only see from afar.

Incidentally, as a general rule you don't want to hang colored flags from a vehicle if there is any risk of encountering direct enemy fire. Flags kind of defeat the purpose of camouflaging the vehicle. That can get you killed, which is what these troops are doubtless most concerned about (along with completing their mission).

davesimondotcom · Mar 21, 2003, 11:12 AM

Originally posted by Logic:
Simey I will not argue with you. You just don't to see the difference with WWII and this. This argument will get us nowhere.

Let's see:

Country loses a war, signs treaties to disarm.

Country ignores such treaties, secretly re-arms itself.

Country invades neighboring nation. Threatens to do it again to other neighbors.

Country's leader orders acts of genocide against people in and out of his country who either disagree with him or have a different religion.

Well, so far, lots of similarities. OK, in Saddam's case, the invastion came BEFORE the losing of the first war.

As far as raising the flag - raising the Iraqi flag would be misleading - after all, it was there in the first place. This IS about "territorial pissing" as it were. Once the war is over and Saddam is gone, the Iraqi flag will be raised again, under a new government.

S Monkey · Mar 21, 2003, 11:13 AM

They removed it.

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmp...161/3kxn1.html

I can imagine how some muslims will react to the picture.

Logic · Mar 21, 2003, 11:42 AM

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
From your comments above, it does sound like your political opinion of the war is coloring this issue. I think there is also a little bit of misunderstanding perhaps relating to the fact that you haven't served and therefore perhaps don't understand the way I'm using terminology.

Does 18 months in the military mean that I haven't served?

By the same standard, the troops on the ground in these engagements were given orders to seize an objective - in this case a port. They did so successfully, and thus that port has been captured. It's not a political statement, it's a hard fact on the ground. That port is now in allied hands, and thus is denied to the enemy. Whether or not there is a flag flying hardly changes that reality, but it is important to the troops as a symbol of their (very local) victory.

I know all about the symbolic aspect of the flag. Please don't be so condecending. As I said before, I strongly support them putting their flag on the vehicles and gear. But not to raise the American or British flag in the muslim world. You have to grasp a little of the culture to understand that point. I hope you do.

Incidentally, as a general rule you don't want to hang colored flags from a vehicle if there is any risk of encountering direct enemy fire. Flags kind of defeat the purpose of camouflaging the vehicle. That can get you killed, which is what these troops are doubtless most concerned about (along with completing their mission).

If they are in an secured area it should be a problem to have coloured flags on your gear and vehicles. I'm not saying that when they begin a mission they should have the stars and stripes all over their tanks and armoured trucks.

SimeyTheLimey · Mar 21, 2003, 11:43 AM

Originally posted by Logic:
Does 18 months in the military mean that I haven't served?

You have never described this. Please elaborate.

Logic · Mar 21, 2003, 11:44 AM

On a sidenote, have you seen the protests all over the arab world?

SimeyTheLimey · Mar 21, 2003, 11:45 AM

Originally posted by Logic:
On a sidenote, have you seen the protests all over the arab world?

Yes. They protested in the last Gulf War too.

davesimondotcom · Mar 21, 2003, 11:51 AM

Originally posted by Logic:
On a sidenote, have you seen the protests all over the arab world?

Yeah, I also noticed some (if not many) of the Iraqi people celebrating the Americans...

http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=stor...wn_2&printer=1

Iraq and the whole Arab world (the whole world really) is to complex for just a few to speak for the whole.

There are protests. There are celebrations.

Logic · Mar 21, 2003, 11:52 AM

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
You have never described this. Please elaborate.

OK, no problem. But only if you forgive the englishproblems involved

I moved to Sweden when I was 5 years old. Became a swedish citizen after a few years. Drafted into the obligatory military training. Finished my 9 months, which is required(or was required I don't know anymore). Applied to do another 9 months in special training. What it's called in english I don't remember, but it was special training in defending and recapturing airbases from the ground. I loved it and was thinking about going professional, but in an idiotic moment I desided to move back with my family to Iceland. Probably one of the biggest mistakes I've made so far in my life.

SimeyTheLimey · Mar 21, 2003, 12:04 PM

Originally posted by Logic:
OK, no problem. But only if you forgive the englishproblems involved

I moved to Sweden when I was 5 years old. Became a swedish citizen after a few years. Drafted into the obligatory military training. Finished my 9 months, which is required(or was required I don't know anymore). Applied to do another 9 months in special training. What it's called in english I don't remember, but it was special training in defending and recapturing airbases from the ground. I loved it and was thinking about going professional, but in an idiotic moment I desided to move back with my family to Iceland. Probably one of the biggest mistakes I've made so far in my life.

Excellent! Then presumably you know that when you capture an objective, it doesn't mean you plan to keep it. Nevertheless, captured territory is captured territory. It makes a huge practical difference whether a port (or in your case, an airfield) is in your hands, or the other side's. It's not a question of title, it's a question of raw possession.

There is also just an emotional aspect. If you have just risked your life to seize an objective, you are going to celebrate. It isn't as though these Marines went on a looting spree, or began raping the civilians. It was a proud moment and they raised their national and Marine Corps flag. Big deal!

I don't really care at this moment if it is bad PR. I'm more worried about the morale of the Marines than I am the locals at this precise moment. After all, I'm sure that anyone offended wasn't at all offended by the presence of the troops themselves. That obviously pales next to the stigma of a piece of cloth.

RAILhead · Mar 21, 2003, 12:06 PM

I think one undeniable fact is that there's a difference in "boot camp training" and actually serving on a battlefield in literal warfare.

Maury

SimeyTheLimey · Mar 21, 2003, 12:08 PM

Originally posted by RAILhead:
I think one undeniable fact is that there's a difference in "boot camp training" and actually serving on a battlefield in literal warfare.

Maury

Yes. Obviously there is a vast difference. And just to make things absolutely clear, I was in the US infantry for a number of years but was never deployed into actual combat.

The Mick · Mar 21, 2003, 12:17 PM

Originally posted by Logic:
<Eddie Izzard>Do you have a flag?</Eddie Izzard>

<Eddie Izzard>
England, what's that behind your back?
India...and a few other countries.
Give them back!
Oh, alright.
</Eddie Izzard>

Logic · Mar 21, 2003, 12:18 PM

Originally posted by RAILhead:
I think one undeniable fact is that there's a difference in "boot camp training" and actually serving on a battlefield in literal warfare.

Maury

Do you know anything about me to say that? Do you know what was a part of my training? Have you done your part for your country? If not, please ask or keep quiet.

Logic · Mar 21, 2003, 12:19 PM

Originally posted by The Mick:
<Eddie Izzard>
England, what's that behind your back?
India...and a few other countries.
Give them back!
Oh, alright.
</Eddie Izzard>

The man is a genious!

RAILhead · Mar 21, 2003, 12:25 PM

I didn't clarify my post as well as I should have.

I made the comment about the difference of training vs actual warfare time in field to add weight to the emotional aspect (as you said, Simey) of the Allied Forces wanting to raise their flag in "victory" over "captured" area.

Maury

SimeyTheLimey · Mar 21, 2003, 12:30 PM

Originally posted by RAILhead:
I didn't clarify my post as well as I should have.

I made the comment about the difference of training vs actual warfare time in field to add weight to the emotional aspect (as you said, Simey) of the Allied Forces wanting to raise their flag in "victory" over "captured" area.

Maury

That's fair enough. I don't have the first hand experience to say that. On the other hand, I served in units where a large proportion of my friends were recent combat veterans and I doubt that they would dispute what I said.

For example, one friend of mine proudly showed me his scrapbook pictures of him sitting behind Manuel Noriega's desk with his muddy boots scuffing the fine mahogany. He also told my how he used Noriega's bathroom, but since he couldn't find toilet paper he was forced to use a starched uniform from the closet. Fortunately, he didn't take pictures of the uniform.

The other thing is that you don't have to have served in combat to have an idea of how esprit de corps is expressed. Pretty much anyone who has been in the armed forces understands that. And especially, I would say, anyone who has spent any amount of time in a combat arms unit, which I have.

Gripen · Mar 21, 2003, 12:47 PM

Originally posted by Logic:
Do you know anything about me to say that? Do you know what was a part of my training? Have you done your part for your country? If not, please ask or keep quiet.

Don't bother, americans think that they are the only ones who actually get to see combat. They have no idea that other countries are all over the world in cleaning-up missions and the regular peacekeeping that is needed after the invasions and hostilities. I think that doesn't come as a surprise to anyone.

p.s. where did you recieve your training and at what base did you work?

daimoni · 05:40 PM

.

BlackGriffen · Mar 21, 2003, 01:35 PM

From what I understand, the troops were supposed to be instructed not to do this. I don't know how to reach a fair compromise (Maybe raise a white flag? The UN flag wouldn't do, nor would NATOs. Perhaps a flag du jour [white field + crescent moon], something that Muslims would find acceptible that the soldiers could use to proclaim their victory), but if the ground pounders continue to do this, it will inflame passions over the issue. I'll grant that the flag is physically less important that the act of putting troops on the ground, but raising the flag like that has a way of putting the issue right in to the people's face.

Also, WWII was very different. That was a total war, and this is not. Kind of like the difference between a duel and trying to subdue a rioter.

BlackGriffen

daimoni · 05:40 PM

.

Logic · Mar 21, 2003, 01:38 PM

Originally posted by Gripen:
Don't bother, americans think that they are the only ones who actually get to see combat. They have no idea that other countries are all over the world in cleaning-up missions and the regular peacekeeping that is needed after the invasions and hostilities. I think that doesn't come as a surprise to anyone.

p.s. where did you recieve your training and at what base did you work?

First of all, calm down. People are sensitive here

training f 7, based f 16. pm me for more.

Logic · Mar 21, 2003, 01:42 PM

Originally posted by BlackGriffen:
From what I understand, the troops were supposed to be instructed not to do this. I don't know how to reach a fair compromise (Maybe raise a white flag? The UN flag wouldn't do, nor would NATOs. Perhaps a flag du jour [white field + crescent moon], something that Muslims would find acceptible that the soldiers could use to proclaim their victory), but if the ground pounders continue to do this, it will inflame passions over the issue. I'll grant that the flag is physically less important that the act of putting troops on the ground, but raising the flag like that has a way of putting the issue right in to the people's face.

Also, WWII was very different. That was a total war, and this is not. Kind of like the difference between a duel and trying to subdue a rioter.

BlackGriffen

Good post. I liked the idea with the crescent moon. Would make alot more sense. Especially if this is all about liberating the Iraqi people.

SimeyTheLimey · Mar 21, 2003, 01:44 PM

Originally posted by BlackGriffen:
From what I understand, the troops were supposed to be instructed not to do this. I don't know how to reach a fair compromise (Maybe raise a white flag? The UN flag wouldn't do, nor would NATOs. Perhaps a flag du jour [white field + crescent moon], something that Muslims would find acceptible that the soldiers could use to proclaim their victory), but if the ground pounders continue to do this, it will inflame passions over the issue. I'll grant that the flag is physically less important that the act of putting troops on the ground, but raising the flag like that has a way of putting the issue right in to the people's face.

Also, WWII was very different. That was a total war, and this is not. Kind of like the difference between a duel and trying to subdue a rioter.

BlackGriffen

I only use WW-II as an example because those are cases of invasions of territory that people can readily relate to. I wouldn't mind betting that is the example that the troops are thinking of. But the character or history of the war is less relevant here than the act of seizing an objective under hostile fire.

I understand that the troops have been forbidden to do this, but I disagree with that command. I think that is being insensitive to the troops. Your idea of a compromise flag is interesting, though. Maybe they should be allowed to raise the flag of their service - the Marine Corps flag, Army flag, and so forth? That would probably more-or-less satisfy the troops, while at the same time, those flags wouldn't be as recognizable to the locals.

daimoni · 05:47 PM

.

Logic · Mar 21, 2003, 01:54 PM

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:

I understand that the troops have been forbidden to do this, but I disagree with that command. I think that is being insensitive to the troops. Your idea of a compromise flag is interesting, though. Maybe they should be allowed to raise the flag of their service - the Marine Corps flag, Army flag, and so forth? That would probably more-or-less satisfy the troops, while at the same time, those flags wouldn't be as recognizable to the locals.

When I was in the military I learned not to question commands comming from a senior officer. Isn't the same rule in US forces?

I agree that they should be able to raise their "service-flags". It would probably make the troops just as happy and the people in the area, and in the middle east would probably don't care much about that flag being raised.

OK, a proposal for all of us:
How about the Iraqi flag and the "service flag" together? Wouldn't that be the best propaganda(I mean in a good way) the allies could show?

SimeyTheLimey · Mar 21, 2003, 02:04 PM

Originally posted by Logic:
When I was in the military I learned not to question commands comming from a senior officer. Isn't the same rule in US forces?

I agree that they should be able to raise their "service-flags". It would probably make the troops just as happy and the people in the area, and in the middle east would probably don't care much about that flag being raised.

OK, a proposal for all of us:
How about the Iraqi flag and the "service flag" together? Wouldn't that be the best propaganda(I mean in a good way) the allies could show?

Yeah, that could have been the compromise, especially if it was in some way a clearly post-Saddam Iraqi flag. The problem is that practically, US flags are probably what the troops have with them. Maybe the Marines carry their flag, but I'd be surprised if Army grunts do (it's kind of ugly).

As for questioning orders, it's an American military tradition. Bitching about orders is part-and-parcel of military life. It's not saying that the orders won't be obeyed, but they will be questioned - especially if they seem a bit dumb to the troops. And some orders can be really dumb. For example, in Panama, troops were forbidden to use CS grenades in an urban area for fear that it would be misreported by the media as a chemical weapon. So the troops just used fragmentation grenades. Dumb.

daimoni · 05:47 PM

.

Logic · Mar 21, 2003, 02:11 PM

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
Yeah, that could have been the compromise, especially if it was in some way a clearly post-Saddam Iraqi flag. The problem is that practically, US flags are probably what the troops have with them. Maybe the Marines carry their flag, but I'd be surprised if Army grunts do (it's kind of ugly).

As for questioning orders, it's an American military tradition. Bitching about orders is part-and-parcel of military life. It's not saying that the orders won't be obeyed, but they will be questioned - especially if they seem a bit dumb to the troops. And some orders can be really dumb. For example, in Panama, troops were forbidden to use CS grenades in an urban area for fear that it would be misreported by the media as a chemical weapon. So the troops just used fragmentation grenades. Dumb.

Post-Saddam Iraq flag? I'm not following.

Well, ok. Of course we questioned orders that were really stupid or something in that direction.

Ordering troops to use fragmentation grenades instead of CS grenades

?? But unfortunatly when the press is so limited in it's knowledge of the material used what can you expect? But why did the military change their plans because of the press ignorance, now that's another question.

Logic · Mar 21, 2003, 02:20 PM

Originally posted by daimoni:
Okay. Seriously, now...

I think the 'service-flags' is a good idea for the reasons Simey has outlined. Uh, as long as they have their individual flags with them. Is there a sew master general that gets deployed with the units?

But I still think raising an Iraqi flag at this very time may be confusing to all parties (on the ground). After Saddam is out of there, there will be ample opportunity to re-raise the Iraqi flag during a huge multi-media event with free popcorn and refills.

Regarding a generic, flag of islam... I don't think the point of this exercise is to restore a religion, but to restore a government. Yes, I know, after the first Gulf War, the Iraqi flag was redesigned to include 'God is Great' on the flag.... but that too, was for propaganda reasons. It's not like Saddam had suddenly turned into a Islamist.

That said, I do think it's important to recognise that the majority of the Iraqi people are muslim and that we should be sensitive to their religious beliefs and practices.

Incredible, I think we all are almost agreeing on something about the middle-east and Iraq! Has that ever happened before?

That "God is Great" is that the writing between the stars? I didn't know that was added after GWI. But of course that was done for propaganda reasons and nothing else.

The probably most important thing now is to show some respect to the troops and the civilians in the middle east. We must be careful to honour their religion and culture. If we can do that, this will probably all end well. At least we can hope that it will.

SimeyTheLimey · Mar 21, 2003, 02:21 PM

Originally posted by Logic:
Ordering troops to use fragmentation grenades instead of CS grenades ?? But unfortunatly when the press is so limited in it's knowledge of the material used what can you expect? But why did the military change their plans because of the press ignorance, now that's another question.

Well, the troops explanation was that it was PC BS. Unfortunately, one of the things that changed after Vietnam is the military became terrified of journalists and hostile reporting.

I should clarify that they actually weren't ordered to use frags instead of CS. I was told that what happened is they had both but during the invasion itself they were specifically ordered not to use CS. But nobody said anything about their fragmentation grenades, so that was what they used.

Hash · Mar 21, 2003, 02:56 PM

Well, i think its kind of natural that when one side takes a city, it raises its flag over it. There is nothing strange in it and its difficult to blame soldiers on that. What is true, however, that arabs all over the world would be extremely upset. Dont forget that the portion of arab population, which SUPPORTS US invasion, is doing that because they think of it as a some kind of removal of Hussein (mainly his opponents). Using US flags in such situation will change the image of the war from Hussein's removal (what is basically the main goal, despite all the talk about WMD) and present the war as a typical aggression with the aim of colonization and so on. Dont forget that arab world basically only few generations ago became free from old colonizators - british, french- in Algeria, Marocco, etc - and veterans of anti-colonial wars are still alive. With that US flag over Iraqi port, they will see it as a return of colonization, this time in US uniform. The commanding officers were right to not allow this to happen. There is no reasons to justify it by "traditions" and etc.