Awaiting the disinformation explosion...

[Wlfgng]

well and Their tyrant put those women and children in that position in the first place...

lol Naso, I couldn't be trusted:eek:

[Martlet]

Originally posted by Arfann
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?

Nope, I'm not disputing that at all.

No jack boots in my closet, hence my straight forward display of the facts.  Again, it wasn't me calling up the sentiment of a country that I had never experienced.

[Rude]

Originally posted by Thrawn
It is the US's responsibility and the US's failure.  The US took it upon itself to take military control of Baghdad.  They suppanted the authority of the policing forces of that city and so has an obligation to provide those services for the Iraqi people.  

The US government saw fit to risk the lives of US soldiers to protect the Iraqi Ministry of Information and Ministry of Oil.  

They did not see fit to guard the incredibly important and priceless artifacts and documents, even though a group of historians informed the Bush administration of the importance of museme and library, well before the war began.  Important not just to the Iraqis but all of humanity.

But this is about liberating the Iraqi people and not about oil right.  

You can't be this simpleminded.

The MI and MO were identified prior to the beginning of this war as essential to the finding of WMD's and to the GDP of the nation of Iraq.

Are you really saying that we knew some, and according to Iraqi citizens themselves, foreigners, would loot this museum and did nothing to protect these artifacts, all the while still fighting in the streets an enemy bent on killing us, and knowingly ignored this and allowed it to happen?

I have to learn not to react to the Whacky Folks on this board.

[lazs2]

so you are saying that the cars of machinegunned women and children and missing artifacts were so horrible that we shouldn't have been there?   or, are you saying that in a war.... protecting antiques is the main concern?   You must lie awake at night thinking of dresden then?   How bout every friggin war that has ever been fought?

If one soldier got killed protecting antiques... that woulda been a tragedy.   Why protect the oil ministry?   You act like that is the cash retgister or something?   I guess they wanted records... they had the fields.   They probly needed the records to prove to you hand wringing, crocadile tear shedding liberal weinies that crimes were being commited..  

so you guys tell me.... why did we "protect' the oil ministry... what dastardly capitalist plot was afoot there?   It sounds as silly as the old "no blood for oil" chant... meaningless drivel.   What did we gain by hiring proffessional theives to loot their own museum?
lazs

[Wlfgng]

snicker.. it's like an addiction Rude..

[Arfann]

Originally posted by lazs2
so you are saying that the cars of machinegunned women and children and missing artifacts were so horrible that we shouldn't have been there?

Yes.

[Arfann]

Originally posted by lazs2
or, are you saying that in a war.... protecting antiques is the main concern?  

No.

[Arfann]

Originally posted by lazs2
You must lie awake at night thinking of dresden then?   How bout every friggin war that has ever been fought?

MMMMM. Nope.

[Arfann]

If one soldier got killed protecting antiques... that woulda been a tragedy.   [/B]

Agreed. But if we hadn't initiated the illegal "pre-emptive" attack on Iraq it would not have been necessary.

[Arfann]

Originally posted by lazs2
Why protect the oil ministry?   You act like that is the cash retgister or something?   I guess they wanted records... they had the fields.   They probly needed the records to prove to you hand wringing, crocadile tear shedding liberal weinies that crimes were being commited..  

I, personally, could care less about the oil ministry. As for the oil

fields , we protected them real good "For the benefit of the Iraqi people". Yeah, right. I believe it.

[AKS\/\/ulfe]

For the last time: The war was NOT illegal, research it and don't go by what some hippy says.
-SW

[lazs2]

Lot's of good in protecting the oil fields... good for everyone concerned.

Perhaps you recall the last gulf war and how the sadman treated the oil fields?   Who did that help?   I recall that cry baby liberals were complaining back then (carl moron sagan) that we should have done more to protect the oil fields.  

No babies will starve over the museum being looted... I gurentee it.
lazs

[Mini D]

So the question is why the U.S. military was told to sieze the Ministry of Oil (I wonder when this was identified as a goal of the move into baghdad... pretty early I'd say) and that they didn't think to protect the hospitals?

Why should they have to protect the hospitals?  If your only reply is "because they were looted" then you might as well shut up now... because you have no argument.  Why in the hell would someone loot a hospital?  Now we know they need to be protected and are doing so.  THEY LOOTED HOSPITALS.  WHY ON EARTH WOULD SOMEONE LOOT A HOSPITAL AND PUT THE PATIENTS AT RISK?  I dare you to come up with a response to that and then explain how the U.S. should have predicted the behavior.

MiniD

[AKS\/\/ulfe]

Hospitals have great drugs- morphine, codeine, percocets, etc... and everyone knows the Iraqis are a bunch of drug addicted thiefs, and the US should of planned for them to need their fix! The answer is SO obvious DJ, sheesh!
-SW

[Smut]

Originally posted by Arfann
Agreed. But if we hadn't initiated the illegal "pre-emptive" attack on Iraq it would not have been necessary.

Please explain why in your opinion the attack against Iraq was illegal.

Indeed, a strong case could be made that it was simply a continuation of the first Gulf War. Or are you denying the Iraqi's violated the terms of the cease fire that they agreed to in 1991?

-Smut