Iraqis revive ancient word `ulooj' to insult, greet U.S. troops By Hannah Allam Knight Ridder Newspapers Mon, Jan. 05, 2004 BAGHDAD, Iraq - College students whisper the word when they spot U.S. troops in Baghdad streets. Vandals scrawl the word across military vehicles. Sneering taxi drivers mutter it when convoys block their cabs. "Ulooj," they say, and while some use it with disdain and others more lightheartedly, it's unmistakably not a nice reference - though what precisely the ancient term from Arabic literature means depends on whom you ask. Among the translations offered: pigs of the desert, foreign infidels, little donkeys, medieval crusaders, bloodsuckers and horned creatures. While no one can quite pin down the original definition, Iraqis agree on the modern definition: "It's the American military," said Maria Hassan, a 23-year-old history major at a university in Baghdad. "We use this word from the past for our occupiers of the present." The revival of "ulooj" (pronounced oo-LOOZH) is the handiwork of Mohammed Saeed al Sahaf, the alternately comical and caustic information minister from the former Iraqi regime. In the first days of the war, Sahaf sent Iraqis running for their dictionaries when he used the word in a speech to describe advancing U.S. forces. Today, "ulooj" lingers as the unofficial national nickname for American soldiers, even among many who profess support for the U.S. presence. "The Americans always use fancy words for their operations here - Desert Storm, Iron Grip - so we should also have special names for them," said Ahmed Kandeel, a 20-year-old Egyptian who attends university in Iraq. "What does `ulooj' mean, anyway? Isn't it `pigs of the desert?' " Ali al Khateeb, who translated Sahaf's live remarks into English for foreign journalists during the war, said he was stumped the day his former boss mentioned "ulooj" at a news conference. Khateeb said he racked his brain for a suitable translation as Western reporters stared at him with impatience. He finally settled on "the enemy" for lack of a better definition. "I went to my old professors after that press conference to ask them for a more precise word," said Khateeb, who's now a producer for an Arabic-language satellite TV station. "One told me it means `little donkeys' and the other said it's `big monsters with small minds.' No one can say for sure. It was an obsolete word before the war." Few soldiers are aware of their new moniker. Iraqi children delight in shouting it as they smile and wave to passing U.S. troops, who happily return what they think is a genuine greeting.

Yes... "Nigga King" is a fine example of those who support "massa" bu$h and his plantation security team. Hey NK, haven't you figured out yet that massa lied to you. There WERE NO WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION in Iraq... but the country DID possess the 2nd largest oil fields in the world... and now they belong to bu$hCo.

NK are you really that stupid?
I thought so.

because that is the only proof for the info about your little CIA asset in Iraq, Saddam, and this mythical shredder.
Are you in competition with fresca for the stupid asshole award?
Out of the gates you are doing well but still behind. Just follow the brown streak.

I don't really give a crap if there was a shredder.

I know that they have uncovered mass graves containing HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS of murder victims.

Now what do you ignorant Leftists have to say?

these graves are the results of the continuation of another typical CIA operation done by another CIA stooge doing their job.
nothing new.
your outrage rings hollow.

What a wonderful delusional world you inhabit.

If WMD are not found, BUSH LIED! (never mind that previous Presidents and all heads of state worldwide accepted that Iraq had WMD)

If WMD are found, well then THE CIA PLANTED THEM!

If mass graves and torture chambers and rape rooms are undiscovered, well they never existed - BUSH LIED!

If mass graves and torture chambers and rape rooms ARE discovered, well then IT'S THE CIA!

You are what is known as an ignorant dick.

such emotion.
You protest too much.
Don't like the truth, huh?
I know it bothers you about the fact that Saddam was a CIA tool and
it is rude of me to bring it up but...
If your best efforts are insults and sarcasm, you lose.

Yup.

Blah blah blah.

Little history lesson for you, Junior.

Saddam comes to power in the late 1970's. In 1980, The United States uses Saddam to contain the Iranian Islamic Revolution.
In 1990, Saddam invades Kuwait and discovers that the United States won't back him up.
In 1991, Saddam is forcibly removed from Kuwait by the United States.

The only kernel of truth to your assinine assertion is that the United States was involved in providing intelligence and monetary support to the Iraqis during the course of the Iran-Iraq war. To make the argument that our formerly assisting Hussein makes us complicit in his crimes after the termination of this assistance is rubbish. By your childish standard, the Soviet Union is thereby responsible for the atrocities of Hitler - because they traded with him right up until 22 June 1941.

The mere fact that the CIA was present automatically absolves the perpetrators of crimes and transfers their guilt unto the United States in pitifully ignorant minds like yours. Of course, you reserve your venom for only Republican presidents and administrations - Kindly remember that Jimmy Carter was President in 1979.

So tell me skinny, are you of the opinion that we should have left Mr. Hussein in place? Would you like to explain the morality of such a decision? Do you think we should have left the sanctions in place or dismantled them as well?

And what about those sanctions? I remember bed-wetting Leftists such as yourself decrying them as inhumane, and holding them responsible for the deaths of "hundreds of thousands" of Iraqis, yet I have never seen one shred of credible evidence of these deaths. Could it be that YUP LIED!?

When are we going to have an accounting of the UN's Oil for Food program, and a prosecution of all the fellow travellers of the Iraqi regime that took blood money in exchange for lobbying against a potential invasion?

Your side is on the wrong side of the facts, of morality, and of history.

Yup.

ooooooo!

such a spurting of wrath.
well, Junior- skinny-skippy, I do blame the CIA.

Without whom Iraq would have not had Saddam in the first place.

Yup

bah. Wrong answer, sonny Jim.

There is no evidence to suggest that the United States had anything to do with Saddam Hussein's ascent to power in Iraq. Kindly produce any credible account of the CIA or other Western agency having anything to do with Hussein prior to his Presidency. I'll wait.

So, let's see, you don't wanna talk about sanctions, invasions, oil-for-food programs, or anything else of substance, you just want to continue to float the same old tired canard that has been proven to be without merit.

Your side claimed to be so concerned for the welfare of the Iraqi people that you sent "human shields" to protect the Ba'athist regime from the Coalition. Nice work. Your side opposed the liberation of the Iraqi people, and now that atrocities are exposed you want to blame the Americans. Brilliant.

What's your encore? Did we invade FOR THE OIL?
Did we do it for HALLIBURTON?
To distract attention from ENRON?

You should stick to foaming latte's son.

you are one lying piece of poor work.
try that line in your peer group of defectives where
it might just fly, sonny.
Aside from the usual gaggle of boneheads, no one buys it.
You could do some good as a USO clown and give your buddy nonanarchist a hummer. I'm certain your talents run that way.
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
While many have thought that Saddam first became involved with U.S. intelligence agencies at the start of the September 1980 Iran-Iraq war, his first contacts with U.S. officials date back to 1959, when he was part of a CIA-authorized six-man squad tasked with assassinating then Iraqi Prime Minister Gen. Abd al-Karim Qasim.-
http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2003/4/10/205859.shtml
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
In the mid-1980s, Miles Copeland, a veteran CIA
operative, told UPI the CIA had enjoyed "close ties"
with Qasim's ruling Baath Party, just as it had close
connections with the intelligence service of Egyptian
leader Gamel Abd Nassar. In a recent public statement,
Roger Morris, a former National Security Council
staffer in the 1970s, confirmed this claim, saying that
the CIA had chosen the authoritarian and anti-communist
Baath Party "as its instrument."
http://www.rise4news.net/Saddam-CIA.html
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
oh that's right.
you're a moron.
or a liar.
isn't that right, skippy?

No question about it, Yup is insane -- paranoid branch.

He thinks the CIA is behind the world's bad guys.

Geez, what a complete dunce.

jump in to help the simpering one.
you sad little tart.

No wonder Yup seems crazy.

He's really Sheepdog posting under another handle.

And Sheepdog is, was, and always will be a complete loon.

but at least I don't have to evade the fact. Like I said, you aren't very bright. Or that piece of lying crap, Simple Simon.
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
-The coup that brought the Ba'ath Party to power in 1963 was celebrated by the United States.

The CIA had a hand in it. They had funded the Ba'ath Party - of which Saddam Hussein was a young member - when it was in opposition.

US diplomat James Akins served in the Baghdad Embassy at the time. Mr. Akins said, "I knew all the Ba'ath Party leaders and I liked them".

"The CIA were definitely involved in that coup. We saw the rise of the Ba'athists as a way of replacing a pro-Soviet government with a pro-American one and you don't get that chance very often.-
http://www.representativepress.org/CIASaddam.html

I've got so many nicks that I have to keep a file on them all.
hell, I could be everyone here except for the bonehead gang.
So try to keep from being stupid cause I'll call you on it.
{smooch}

You liberals are hardly better than the fucking klan, only instead of hating blacks you hate America.

Just as if a black man cured AIDS and cancer on the same day the klan would still hate him, so you liberals hate anything successful, American or both.

It's a special kind of tard who blames all the atrocities committed by other countries' tyrants AND 9/11 on the same CIA.

Funny: no matter how much the REDS hate the USA they never leave for ideological paradises like Cuba or China.

Logic hath run aground as the phrase "America Hater" is coupled with "reds" or "liberals"
(this will make the right wing idiots feel at home )
Hitler, at least served in combat even if he was a looney. Bush will never measure up to Hitler. He is a coward as well as a moron.

I would wager that President Bush has a far more extensive military record than you do. Furthermore, President Bush is no coward. Flying a jet fighter requires quite a bit of bravery.

Yup, you win one round of an argument - showing that Saddam was involved in CIA operations in the past- yet you lose every other salient point, and call ME a liar?

What a jackass.

Riddle me this genius: We've been in a state of war with the Iraqi regime of Saddam Hussein since 1990. It has been the policy of the last three Presidents of the United States to change the regime in Iraq.

Is it your contention that the actions of Saddam Hussein are the responsibility of the CIA even after the beginning of hostilities in 1990?

Are you saying that the CIA was running an operation to prop up Hussein while the United States was attempting to overthrow him?

Or are you merely using the childish logic that since we once used Hussein to do our bidding, everything he has done since is somehow our responsibility?

Here, I'll let Shakespeare explain it to you:

"So, if a son that is by his father sent about
merchandise do sinfully miscarry upon the sea, the
imputation of his wickedness by your rule, should be
imposed upon his father that sent him: or if a
servant, under his master's command transporting a
sum of money, be assailed by robbers and die in
many irreconciled iniquities, you may call the
business of the master the author of the servant's
damnation: but this is not so: the king is not
bound to answer the particular endings of his
soldiers, the father of his son, nor the master of
his servant; for they purpose not their death, when
they purpose their services."

(Henry V, Act 4, Scene 1)

You see, child, the fact that we formerly were allied to someone in no way makes us responsible for their actions after the termination of this alliance, and certainly not after the initiation of hostilities between our country and theirs.

Get it yet, dummy?

Finally, I find it hilarious that you have the temerity to even make the mealy-mouthed protestations you have on this subject. Iraq today is free. The citizens of this country no longer live under a fascist dictatorship which murdered hundreds of thousands of their countrymen.

And you and your ideological bretheren did everything in your power to stop this liberation from happening.

You are a moral midget.

...comes to you from a moral pathogen.

"Hitler, at least served in combat even if he was a looney. Bush will never measure up to Hitler. He is a coward as well as a moron."

Brilliant. You guys do yourselves in with some of the dumbest comments ever recorded. Your lameass victicrat/commie/socialist parties deserve implosion, and by golly you got it. The liberal matrix can't beat the power of the internet.

Per your comments (shockingly retarded even by Clinton standards) I take it you're disappointed that Bush didn't kill millions of Jews like brave Hitler did. Because like a great liberal once said, "I don't care what anyone says, flying planes into bulidings: not cowardly."

I doubt YOU have a Harvard Business Degree, or can fly a military jet, yet I bet you and the rest of the Red Menace enjoy listening to that brilliant C STUDENT Gore ramble on about global warming. HA HA HA.

Enjoy your Dumbass Comment of the Year Award. And to think, it's only March...

you realy need to get a better toothbrush.
what a stupid nick, BTW. east coast ass is a better one.

Poetry ,free of charge. Try not to piss on your birkenstocks.

Bush should stroll to victory in 2004.

The Democrats are in the process of committing political suicide (again) by nominating an extremely vulnerable candidate, John Kerry.

John, doesn't have a prayer, Kerry is their best shot. It's not much of a shot, but it's the best they've got.

It's going to be Michael Dukakis, Walter Mondale, Al Gore, and McGovern all rolled into one.

America will not vote for a New England liberal in the Dukakis/Teddy Kennedy mold.

George Bush just needs to lay back and let the Democrats fall on their own sword. It's the best strategy. They're bound and determined to do it, so why not let them?

still smells like you though (phew)

It's going to be close but Bush is leaving. Why?Because Kerry is not George W Bush. Dubya has pissed off enough people to guarantee Kerry a victory.

Many Republicans will not vote at all because Bush is screwing up the future of the US by running hideous deficits and hoping that GNP growth will cover his ass. What they don't take into account is the huge old age healthcare and pension bills due in 8 or 9 years time.

Bush is screwing up America big style.

Bill Clinton pissed off a whole lot more people than George Bush ever could. And he was (strangely) reelected.

It's the economy, stupid.

You apparently don't keep up with the news. The economy has been making record gains of late. The stock market is up. By every measure the economy has been gaining ground.

It's the tax cuts stupid.

are funding thse tax cuts. Borrow now, let our children pay for it. Is that your idea of sound economic management?

We've got to get that idiot out of the white house.

The governments job macroeconomically is to even out the good and the bad times. This creates macro economic stability (so you can plan in other areas without your efforts being obscured by macro economic shifts) AND it should be cheeper to spend up big when there is slack capacity in the market. (so the govt is almost like an entrepreneur - just hte only one with the economies of scale to take advantage of the situation)

SO if times are bad there should be a govt deficit - if times are good there should be a govt surplus. Good planning should result in these balancing out over the long run. If they dont balance out then you create a problem for you to be able to continue to serve this role into the future (of course a surplus is less of a problem than a deficit in that regard).

Anyway - It would not be unreasonable to have classified the recent period as a "bad time", as long as when growth is above the long run average we change to "good time" policies.