Awaiting the disinformation explosion...

[Arfann]

Originally posted by Saurdaukar
Countdown to Blitz' response pointing the finger at the Bush Administration doing this to us.

T minus 5... 4... 3...

Heck, don't take no Euro dude to do that. Lots of us Merkins who actually think instead of being brainwashed by the press and gov.  We know it's simply a co-dependency between Osama and Dubya.

[Arfann]

Originally posted by Martlet
I think the statement he was trying to make is that Iraq supported terrorism.

And we'd never do anything like that ourselves!  Ask the folks in Columbia, Nicaragua, Palestine, and Iran. They'll tell you.

[Martlet]

Originally posted by Arfann
And we'd never do anything like that ourselves!  Ask the folks in Columbia, Nicaragua, Palestine, and Iran. They'll tell you.

Actually, I've lived in 2 of those places.  I think I have a fairly good feel for the public opinion of the US there.

Have you?

[Dowding]

What are you talking about cpxxx? You've missed my point entirely. There was a conscious decision not to protect the hospitals and a conscious decision to protect an oil ministry building. It's that decision I have a problem with. They deployed troops to the ministry instead of deploying any to a single hospital; clearly, I'm talking about early on in the occupation.

When Rumsfeld downplays the looting and says, with a coverall statement, it was to be 'expected' he's issuing... a coverall statement. There was no qualification of exceptions, no admission of surprise that hospitals were being looted. Realistic? It seems you are the one embellishing Rumsfeld's remarks with unrealistic meaning. He said the looting (all of it) was to be expected.

[Martlet]

Originally posted by Dowding
What are you talking about cpxxx? You've missed my point entirely. There was a conscious decision not to protect the hospitals and a conscious decision to protect an oil ministry building. It's that decision I have a problem with. They deployed troops to the ministry instead of deploying any to a single hospital; clearly, I'm talking about early on in the occupation.

When Rumsfeld downplays the looting and says, with a coverall statement, it was to be 'expected' he's issuing... a coverall statement. There was no qualification of exceptions, no admission of surprise that hospitals were being looted. Realistic? It seems you are the one embellishing Rumsfeld's remarks with unrealistic meaning. He said the looting (all of it) was to be expected.

So you have a problem with it.  Who cares.  Become a general and do something about it.  It's real easy to criticize from your living room.

[Arfann]

Originally posted by Martlet
Actually, I've lived in 2 of those places.  I think I have a fairly good feel for the public opinion of the US there.

Have you?

WOW! You freakin' lived there? That makes you the expert on darn near everything, don't it?  So, err, ah, what did you and the Shah talk about? And the other kind hearted supporters of the good ol' US of A.?

[Martlet]

Originally posted by Arfann
WOW! You freakin' lived there? That makes you the expert on darn near everything, don't it?  So, err, ah, what did you and the Shah talk about? And the other kind hearted supporters of the good ol' US of A.?

No, but you said ask the folks that live there.  I was one of them.  I have.  While that doesn't make me an expert, it gives me a basis to form an opinion.


Where did you get yours?

[cpxxx]

Dowding, that picture on your posts,  that is you, Mr Al Sahhaf?

It must be. That's the only explanation I can think of.

I'm sure your namesake Dowding would have understood that there is no military or strategic reason for any troops to go to any hospital to guard it. I doubt if anyone had any inkling that hospitals would be looted. You don't have to be an General or an armchair general to understand that.  

As for the Ministry of Oil, well of course it was occupied. It's probably the most important strategic target in the city given that the whole economic future of Iraq depends on oil.  

In any case linking the Ministry of Oil with hospitals is pure sophistry. Something you are good at it seems.

I'm sorry too that Rumsfeld failed to clarify what he meant, careless of him to lay himself open to misinterpretation by issuing a coverall statement without any caveats to satisfy you. Perhaps you're right he knew all along that the hospitals and museums would be looted. Maybe he wanted them looted, maybe he organized the looting and even now has a couple of dozen vases tucked in the back of a C-17 on the way to his mansion. Maybe he has shares in a medical supplies company. .................Now I'm being ridiculous.

That makes two of us.

[Arfann]

Originally posted by Martlet
Where did you get yours?

Many years of watching this merry-go-round from inside and outside. I've spent most of them on the fence, listening to what the left said, then what the right said.  This latest go-round regarding Iraq confirmed my worst fears about the right. Really put a nail in it, punting me further left than I ever would have imagined. If your comments about living here or there mean that you don't believe we support terrorists or horrific governments when it's convenient to do so, then you are either playing right-wing rhetorical games or living in yaya land.

edit: OBTW: Since I've taken an overt stand against this "regime" the bad dreams that started when it was obvious bush was going to have his war "regardless", have stopped.

[Martlet]

Originally posted by Arfann
Many years of watching this merry-go-round from inside and outside. I've spent most of them on the fence, listening to what the left said, then what the right said.  This latest go-round regarding Iraq confirmed my worst fears about the right. Really put a nail in it, punting me further left than I ever would have imagined. If your comments about living here or there mean that you don't believe we support terrorists or horrific governments when it's convenient to do so, then you are either playing right-wing rhetorical games or living in yaya land.

edit: OBTW: Since I've taken an overt stand against this "regime" the bad dreams that started when it was obvious bush was going to have his war "regardless", have stopped.

I see.  So what you are trying to say, is that when you use the opinion of the citizen of another country in your argument, you really have no basis for doing so.   You just make it up, and declare it to be true.  How convenient.

[Arfann]

Originally posted by Martlet
I see.  So what you are trying to say, is that when you use the opinion of the citizen of another country in your argument, you really have no basis for doing so.   You just make it up, and declare it to be true.  How convenient.

Ah, young Martlett. You have learned the lessons well from the Rush/Bush Rhetorical example. Put an appropriate twist on things, then challenge some aspect which that creates, thereby sidestepping the original point. You no doubt find it extra difficult to dance around the issue in those jack boots.

The original point (nice and clear, no "rhetoric" to confuse the issue) is that we, the USA, have supported tyrannical dictators and terrorist revolutionaries when it suited us.  Do you dispute this?

[lazs2]

uh... am i missing something?   are people trying to say that we should have left the sadman in power so that a bunch of artifacts wouldn't have gotten stolen?
lazs

[Wlfgng]

nah.. I think, well at least Arfann, is saying don't trust the media and that the media is strongly influenced by the gov't...
that and the fact that our gov't, like all the others prolly, has it's corrupt side.

[Naso]

Originally posted by Wlfgng
nah.. I think, well at least Arfann, is saying don't trust the media and that the media is strongly influenced by the gov't...
that and the fact that our gov't, like all the others prolly, has it's corrupt side.

Wlfgng for president!

[Arfann]

Originally posted by lazs2
uh... am i missing something?   are people trying to say that we should have left the sadman in power so that a bunch of artifacts wouldn't have gotten stolen?
lazs

No, Lazsie, what I am saying is that Saddam was no doubt a tyrant, but not our tyrant. Our tyrant is the one who stuck a bunch of young Americans in an environment where they have to machine gun cars full of women and children in "self defense". The artifacts issue is simply that since we're there and protecting our oil, we should also protect artifacts of the beginnings of civilization.