Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: Lizard3 on April 16, 2003, 04:28:56 PM
-
Of course, it was inevitable, but its started.
Iraqi's loot museum of ancient artifacts.
Iraqi's loot national library and burn whats left.
Iraqi's loot and burn Islamic library containing pricless ancient Koran's.
Heard it on NPR today. A dude with an Arabic accent said that it was Americans. That if we didn't do it, we paid someone to do it.
It will get worse, sooner rather than later.
-
It was me. I admit it. I saw the opportunity, George Bush told me it was OK, so I did it. And I don't care who knows it, neither!
SOB
-
damn some of the oldest civilization artifacts gone....sad:(
-
Originally posted by Lizard3
Of course, it was inevitable, but its started.
Iraqi's loot museum of ancient artifacts.
Iraqi's loot national library and burn whats left.
Iraqi's loot and burn Islamic library containing pricless ancient Koran's.
Heard it on NPR today. A dude with an Arabic accent said that it was Americans. That if we didn't do it, we paid someone to do it.
It will get worse, sooner rather than later.
It wasn't american troops but your government is responsible for it, sad but true.
If one of the museums were a known place of WMDs ,there would have been american forces to secure them.
Regards Blitz
America was threatened by Iraq in no way, it was just plain ridiculous.
-
Originally posted by blitz
It wasn't american troops but your government is responsible for it, sad but true.
If one of the museums were known places of WMDs there would have been american forces to secure them.
Regards Blitz
America was threatened by Iraq in no way, it was just plain ridiculous.
Yes, it is completely our fault that some Iraqi citizens are thieves.
-
Originally posted by blitz
It wasn't american troops but your government is responsible for it, sad but true.
I agree. The United States started WWII as well. No - seriously - had we just given Japan their oil and allied with our fellow Aryans in Europe (this was the 40's afterall) the world would be a better place.
-
Originally posted by Saurdaukar
I agree. The United States started WWII as well. No - seriously - had we just given Japan their oil and allied with our fellow Aryans in Europe (this was the 40's afterall) the world would be a better place.
Japan attacked Pearl Harbour not Iraq.
They did nothin to your country.
Regards Blitz
America was threatened by Iraq in no way, it was just plain ridiculous.
-
Originally posted by blitz
It wasn't american troops but your government is responsible for it, sad but true.
If one of the museums were known places of WMDs there would have been american forces to secure them.
I hear alot of the items were destroyed. Which leads me to believe sabotage, not looting.
-
Originally posted by SLO
damn some of the oldest civilization artifacts gone....sad:(
the artifacts are not "gone", the artifacts belonged to the iraq people , and thats who took them, if you would like them back in the museum, ask the iraqis to put them back.
maybe if france, germany, russia, turkey, and other anti-american members of the UNSC had worked to get saddam out of power instead of supporting him this would not have happened.
-
Originally posted by blitz
They did nothin to your country.
(http://www.schulserver.hessen.de/ssa_htw/buedingen/bs/vons/terror/wtc12.jpg)
-
LMAO.. (at myself) for thinking Blitz had a brain..
my God, do you guys think he really believes what he posted?
I'm having a difficult time believing he's for real.
what an artifact he is.
-
Well Japan wasnt to blame for Pearl Harbor, they merely struck out in self defense bacuse of US racism and imperialism. Really!
When will that tough little country Japan get its apology?
Right blitz?
-
I think he is a good fisherman
-
No, the people who took them knew exactly what they were going for. Perhaps they had people working on the inside, because the vault door was opened by key not by violence.
I expect alot of the artifacts will be appearing on the antiquities black market very soon.
A long with all the infrastructure installations, the museums should have been secured by Coalition forces. They dropped the ball, unfortunately.
the artifacts are not "gone", the artifacts belonged to the iraq people , and thats who took them, if you would like them back in the museum, ask the iraqis to put them back.
Nope. They will be sold on the antiquities market and be in rich collectors private vaults OUTSIDE Iraq faster than you can say 'chaos'. Don't kid yourself about it being archaological socialism. Those pieces deserve to be in museums so all Iraqis can enjoy them, not just rich, unscrupulous Westerners.
-
Originally posted by Saurdaukar
(http://www.schulserver.hessen.de/ssa_htw/buedingen/bs/vons/terror/wtc12.jpg)
Iraq people did absolutely nothing to your country. Punt!
WTC hijackers were from your friends out of Saudi-Arabia and Kuwait.
Regards Blitz
America was threatened by Iraq in no way, it was just plain ridiculous.
-
Originally posted by Dowding
No, the people who took them knew exactly what they were going for. Perhaps they had people working on the inside, because the vault door was opened by key not by violence.
I expect alot of the artifacts will be appearing on the antiquities black market very soon.
A long with all the infrastructure installations, the museums should have been secured by Coalition forces. They dropped the ball, unfortunately.
Nope. They will be sold on the antiquities market and be in rich collectors private vaults OUTSIDE Iraq faster than you can say 'chaos'. Don't kid yourself about it being archaological socialism. Those pieces deserve to be in museums so all Iraqis can enjoy them, not just rich, unscrupulous Westerners.
Exactly!:(
Regards Blitz
-
i'm checking e-bay for iraq artifacts
-
The disinformation campaign against the west, and in particular the US, started many years ago in the middle east. It's much easier to subjugate a people when you give them an external focus for their hate.
-
Heck, read some of the stuff ole Osama has spouted off, about how much he calculates the USA owes Saudi Arabia. The guy supposedly has a degree in accounting I read somewhere and saw on the news (albeit Western news, not the totally truthful Arab stuff....:rolleyes: )
Oddly, he forgot that the Arabs oil riches stemmed from Westerners exploring for oil. Not meant to be mean, but if Westerners hadn't gone in there and found all that oil, the Arabs would be peacefully and contently still living the nomadic life they enjoyed for centuries.
-
Originally posted by AKIron
It's much easier to subjugate a people when you give them an external focus for their hate.
Countdown to Blitz' response pointing the finger at the Bush Administration doing this to us.
T minus 5... 4... 3...
-
Originally posted by Saurdaukar
Countdown to Blitz' response pointing the finger at the Bush Administration doing this to us.
T minus 5... 4... 3...
Ah, this is easy, if you want to be labeled as a good oracle you need to do something better. ;)
:D
-
Yeah, he's already said it several times. Likening Bush to Hitler. I think maybe he needs to lay off that German beer, he's just "blitzed".
-
CALL NOW!!!!!!!
(http://home.usit.net/~f-shysa/Vader/VaderPosterLarge.jpg)
-
Originally posted by blitz
Iraq people did absolutely nothing to your country. Punt!
100% proven they harbour Terrorist, maybe not ones connected to 9/11, but definately harbor terrorist.
All countries that are willing to allow terrorist to operate knowingly have had a fair warning. US is not going to put up with that crap any longer. Hope we hold the coarse.
-
Originally posted by BigGun
100% proven they harbour Terrorist, maybe not ones connected to 9/11, but definately harbor terrorist.
All countries that are willing to allow terrorist to operate knowingly have had a fair warning. US is not going to put up with that crap any longer. Hope we hold the coarse.
And now that we've taken care of that, his old buddy Abu can go rot in an Italian prison where he belongs.
-
Originally posted by Saurdaukar
(http://www.schulserver.hessen.de/ssa_htw/buedingen/bs/vons/terror/wtc12.jpg)
I'm sorry Saurdaukar, I normally don't comment on these fruity political threads, but I can't let this one go. Iraq had absolutely nothing to do with those attacks.
In fact, I think you will find that most of the attackers came from saudi arabia, a country where only the top few people are pro US, while the vast majority of the population hates both the saudi leadership and america.
On a less serious note, I love your avatar! :)
-
Originally posted by Gryffin
I'm sorry Saurdaukar, I normally don't comment on these fruity political threads, but I can't let this one go. Iraq had absolutely nothing to do with those attacks.
In fact, I think you will find that most of the attackers came from saudi arabia, a country where only the top few people are pro US, while the vast majority of the population hates both the saudi leadership and america.
On a less serious note, I love your avatar! :)
I think the statement he was trying to make is that Iraq supported terrorism.
-
Martlet considering that OBL was a direct enemy to Saddams government (as were any Islamic terrorist groups) and the fact that the only known terrorist camp (well at least publicied lately) was in fact in the north-east, kurdish ruled part of the country, there was little proof to back up your statement.
If something, Saddams attacks on the kurds could have been seen as a campaign to get rid of the illegal terrorist camps in the northern territory. :)
Could have, even though that's not likely to be the case. He was a murdering bastard. But a threat to the US? Not likely.
No, this war had nothing to do with any perceivable threats to the US, it was GB2 finishing his daddy's job. He wanted to stabilise the situation in the middle east by imposing US power on the region --> effectively replacing the government of Iraq with a US puppet government. And make a few bucks in the process.
I wouldn't be surprised if soon people will find out that GWB's family has directly or indirectly large quantities of stock of the company that was secretely and solely awarded the reconstruction of the country. I smell another Watergate (or do you even care anymore.)
-
Like any other business if you want to corner the market simple push out the competition.
-
Well you didnt have to wait long for a disinformation explosion. It started long befor the war and will continue long after it.
read up (http://www.amazon.ca/exec/obidos/ASIN/0375714499/702-2805484-3502420)
-
Originally posted by Siaf__csf
Martlet considering that OBL was a direct enemy to Saddams government (as were any Islamic terrorist groups) and the fact that the only known terrorist camp (well at least publicied lately) was in fact in the north-east, kurdish ruled part of the country, there was little proof to back up your statement.
If something, Saddams attacks on the kurds could have been seen as a campaign to get rid of the illegal terrorist camps in the northern territory. :)
Could have, even though that's not likely to be the case. He was a murdering bastard. But a threat to the US? Not likely.
No, this war had nothing to do with any perceivable threats to the US, it was GB2 finishing his daddy's job. He wanted to stabilise the situation in the middle east by imposing US power on the region --> effectively replacing the government of Iraq with a US puppet government. And make a few bucks in the process.
I wouldn't be surprised if soon people will find out that GWB's family has directly or indirectly large quantities of stock of the company that was secretely and solely awarded the reconstruction of the country. I smell another Watergate (or do you even care anymore.)
Thank you for playing, please try again.
-
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. :rolleyes:
-
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. :rolleyes:
right.
Not about artifacts, either.
They lost a portion of the police force in my town due to budget cuts. I'm going to go rob the bank. It's not my fault, it's the governments.
-
hmm.... the vast museum staff had been trained prior to the war on how to remove the entire contents of the museum and put it in safe places in a 24 hour period in the case of war.
They had weeks to do their job with no real danger to them at all... they really fell down on the job... or did they?
either way.... stuff gets broken in wars.. really, read a couple of books if you don't believe me... heard there was some neato stuff in germany before the war...
the crocodile tears of liberals.... kinda disgusting in their transparency
lazs
-
Originally posted by lazs2
hmm.... the vast museum staff had been trained prior to the war on how to remove the entire contents of the museum and put it in safe places in a 24 hour period in the case of war.
They had weeks to do their job with no real danger to them at all... they really fell down on the job... or did they?
either way.... stuff gets broken in wars.. really, read a couple of books if you don't believe me... heard there was some neato stuff in germany before the war...
the crocodile tears of liberals.... kinda disgusting in their transparency
lazs
Cultureless Pappnase ! :(
regards Blitz
-
yeah they are.. can you believe the Iraqi's ?
-
Originally posted by Pongo
Well you didnt have to wait long for a disinformation explosion. It started long befor the war and will continue long after it.
read up (http://www.amazon.ca/exec/obidos/ASIN/0375714499/702-2805484-3502420)
To informative to have only a link :)
Brillinant if imperfect analysis from the great Chomsky, January 6, 2001
Reviewer: Eric from New London, CT
Edward S. Herman and Noam Chomsky provide a radical critique of the American Mass Media through the formulation and testing of a "propaganda model." This propaganda model states that, contrary to popular opinion and conservative thinking, the media does not have a liberal or anti-establishment bias. The Mass Media is owned largely by wealthy individuals, banks, and corporate interests. The media depends upon the state for information and assistance in its day-to-day operations. Thus, free-market forces cause the media to adopt a bias in favor of corporate interests, government interests, and the status quo in general. The "Propaganda Model" is tested out on a variety of foreign affairs matters, ranging from Nicaragua to the "Plot to Kill the Pope" to Vietnam to East Timor. In between, a few comments on domestic affairs such as the FBI's intrusions and Watergate are thrown into the mix. Chomsky is a brilliant scholar and analyst, and his theory largely holds up under investigation. The propaganda model demonstrates how a free press such as our own can produce more influential and effective propaganda than a press with state censorship such as that of Communist countries. However, Chomsky's conclusions are difficult to swallow: The independent media which Chomsky prefers is biased based on the ideology of those doing the publishing, and therefore no better than the mainstream media in terms of fairness or accuracy. On page 299, Chomsky argues that the break-ins and harassment by the FBI of the Socialist Worker's Party were covered up by the media because the SWP represents no powerful interests. It is just as likely that few newspaper readers would be interested in the fate of a tiny, unpopular political organization. Finally, the propaganda model fails to take one factor into account: Perhaps the reason why people accept media distortions is that they WANT to be convinced that the government is doing right by the people, that our country is honorable and decent compared to our foes, and that the status quo is acceptable. Humans have a basic psychological desire to be convinced of such things, and a media that screamed about corruption and inequality would be unpopular indeed. In short, Chomsky's writing is thoroughly readable and his biting analysis is a must-see for Americans interested in how their media operates. Just look upon his analysis and conclusions with an open, yet critical, mind. --.
Regards Blitz
America was threatened by Iraq in no way, it was just plain ridiculous.
-
why are Eurotards always going on about the big American "conspiracy" and "coverup"?
-
Originally posted by Martlet
why are Eurotards always going on about the big American "conspiracy" and "coverup"?
Unbelievable Aggressiveness of resent american foreign politics comes to mind, connected with a propaganda show that is unique :(
Regards Blitz
America was threatened by Iraq in no way, it was just plain ridiculous.
-
Originally posted by Gryffin
I'm sorry Saurdaukar, I normally don't comment on these fruity political threads, but I can't let this one go. Iraq had absolutely nothing to do with those attacks.
In fact, I think you will find that most of the attackers came from saudi arabia, a country where only the top few people are pro US, while the vast majority of the population hates both the saudi leadership and america.
On a less serious note, I love your avatar! :)
See Martlet's response.
And thank you. :D
-
Good ol' Slick Willy said it best:
"Our paradigm now seems to be: something terrible happened to us on September 11, and that gives us the right to interpret all future events in a way that everyone else in the world must agree with us," said Clinton, who spoke at a seminar of governance organized by Conference Board (news - web sites).
"And if they don't, they can go straight to hell."
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/afp/20030416/ts_alt_afp/us_attacks_clinton_030416002722
-
Originally posted by OIO
"And if they don't, they can go straight to hell."
Finally something me and ole Slick can agree on. Or was he being sarcastic?
-
I don't proclaim to know the absolute truth about all that is going on in the Middle East.
I take what I read and hear from multiple sources and form my own opinion. I don't trust any one single source of information from the news media.
Tell ya what.
You go back and read multiple sources about your country's aggressions in the last century. You're so quick to point and ridicule and try to incriminate America for an "illegal war", look in the mirror, pal.
See how your countrymen/ancestors were led by the nose by Goebbels and Uncle Adolf, how much better life was going to be for Germany. See how many unprovoked acts of war your country committed. Unprovoked attack on Poland. Breaking a non-aggression pact with the USSR.
Look at your country's "Final Solution", how many Jews were wiped out to make room for your country's "Master Race".
Add up how many deaths resulted from your country's acts of aggression and attempted domination, then look at what is happening now.
Coalition forces are PURPOSELY trying to avoid killing noncombatants. Coalition forces are not in Iraq to take over the country for the oil riches, at least not IMO.
Tally up your death count, blitz, think about it, then come back and tally up how many civilian deaths coalition forces have caused.
Throw out the UN "Oil for Food" program and the little "millions of Iraqis died as a result of those sanctions" line too. Ole Sodom was able to build 70-odd palaces in the years since the first Gulf War, how did he do that if he was using the oil money to feed his beleagured, starving people?
On second thought, forget it blitz.
Me thinks you're just suffering from an inferiority complex.
Your country lost the last two wars it took part in, in a BIG way.
Go on thinking how high and mighty you are, how you have such higher morals than Americans.
But first chance you get, take a trip to Auschwitz or one of the other death camps YOUR country sponsored.
"Let those without sin cast the first stone..."
Put down the rock, blitz.
Your country still has more than few bloodstains on her hands.......
-
Originally posted by Gryffin
On a less serious note, I love your avatar! :)
I thought the same lol. Its really cool :)
-
Blitz do you have no concept of irony? Considering where you live.
Criticisms of the American troops failing to secure the museums and hospitals from looting borders on the absurd. Just who anticipated that the Iraqis themselves would loot their own hospitals and museums? It's almost unheard of.
Armies always have objectives to capture, no army includes the local museums or hospitals nor should they.
Thrawn's criticism is typical. On the face of it he seems to be making a good point. As I write this it is approximately one week after the fall of Baghdad. One whole week later Thrawn and people like him expect a relatively small force of American troops to police the whole city, restore all electricity, water and services. Protect every street corner, shop, house and hospital from looters and thieves. Even Superman could hardly be expected to do that.
In the real world not in the fantasyland Thrawn and Blitz inhabit. These things take time. Not that they care about that. America bashing is all they are interested in.
Note: I am not American.
-
Criticisms of the American troops failing to secure the museums and hospitals from looting borders on the absurd. Just who anticipated that the Iraqis themselves would loot their own hospitals and museums? It's almost unheard of.
You what? According to Rumsfeld it was 'expected'. If it was expected by the Bush administration, why did they not do anything about it?
So either Rumsfeld was talking out of his arse or the planners dropped a bollock.
Moreover, you also ought to check out how NATO handled Kosovo, where there were police and civil administrators on the job immediately.
Thrawn's criticism is typical. On the face of it he seems to be making a good point. As I write this it is approximately one week after the fall of Baghdad. One whole week later Thrawn and people like him expect a relatively small force of American troops to police the whole city, restore all electricity, water and services. Protect every street corner, shop, house and hospital from looters and thieves. Even Superman could hardly be expected to do that.
What is funny is that the oil ministry building was protected immediately after the troops gained access to that area. Hospitals were ignored for days, water treatment plants were ignored for days, the museums were ignored completely but the ministry for oil was protected immediately.
Surely that team should have been at a hospital or at least the museum?
PS. And before you try and make out I'm saying the war was solely for oil, that's not what I'm saying at all.
-
Originally posted by Dowding
Moreover, you also ought to check out how NATO handled Kosovo, where there were police and civil administrators on the job immediately.
Not a good comparison, much smaller country, much fewer people, much less resitance, no month long groundwar, no 500 mile march, no removal of all security foces, much higher density of troops - not even close to iraq..
-
Originally posted by Lizard3
Of course, it was inevitable, but its started.
Iraqi's loot museum of ancient artifacts.
Iraqi's loot national library and burn whats left.
Iraqi's loot and burn Islamic library containing pricless ancient Koran's.
Heard it on NPR today. A dude with an Arabic accent said that it was Americans. That if we didn't do it, we paid someone to do it.
It will get worse, sooner rather than later.
NPR=Blame America first crowd.
-
whole lot of YOU people screaming "with us or against us!!" is it really suprising that the majority of the world is against us?
-
Newsflash Dolf, many of the world's countries, if not most, have been "against" us for a long time. Something to do with spreading democracy and freedom maybe?
-
if they choose to be against us so be it..
at least we know who they are .... :eek:
-
fffreeze220 my Grandfather came from Breman back in the late '30s. :D
-
Dowding, did you even read the stuff you quoted?
Rumsfeld was referring to looting in general not specifically hospitals and museums even if he does talk out of his arse half the time. Looting of hospitals could never have been anticipated.
As for ignoring hospitals for 'days' and water treatment plants for 'days'. Well the war didn't exactly end last thursday. Again you expect superhuman efforts from mere mortals. It tough enough to win war in a country that size in a month yet alone expect them to re-build it all in exactly one week while at the same time anticipating every possible scenario.
Bit of a perfectionist are you? Try and be a bit realistic for once.
AKiron most of the world is not against you. That kind of attitude has gained a lot of currency among Americans lately. But it's not true and never really was. It's nearly as bad as the previous attitude amongst many Americans that the whole world loved you. The truth as ever is somewhere in the middle.
I would say though that most of the world does not like the current American administration specifically George W Bush.
-
Originally posted by AWMac
fffreeze220 my Grandfather came from Breman back in the late '30s. :D
Hey :) Is he still allive ?
Can u find out what part of Bremen ?
-
He passed away 1970. last name is Wrede. But then again that might be a popular name around there. :D
-
Wrede isnt that popular like Meyer or Schulz eg.
-
I had a Great Aunt Anna who lived there, she was my Grandfathers Sister. Don't recall her last name though. :(
-
Would be interseting to know what part of Bremen he was from. Maybe right from my neighbourhood
-
Originally posted by AKIron
The disinformation campaign against the west, and in particular the US, started many years ago in the middle east. It's much easier to subjugate a people when you give them an external focus for their hate.
And the disinformation campaign by the beady eyed little weasel in the White House and his buds has demonized all middle easterners, making them much easier to poof into non-existence, leaving their oil right where we want it.
-
Originally posted by john9001
the artifacts are not "gone", the artifacts belonged to the iraq people , and thats who took them, if you would like them back in the museum, ask the iraqis to put them back.
Ain't a gonna happen. We done "freed" them to loot, pillage, and destroy. Back to the old warring tribes, unable to defend their oil from us sophisticated, well meaning westerners.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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?
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.?
-
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?
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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?
-
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
-
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.
-
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! :)
-
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.
-
well and Their tyrant put those women and children in that position in the first place...
lol Naso, I couldn't be trusted:eek:
-
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.
-
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. :rolleyes:
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.
-
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
-
snicker.. it's like an addiction Rude..
-
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.
-
Originally posted by lazs2
or, are you saying that in a war.... protecting antiques is the main concern?
No.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
For the last time: The war was NOT illegal, research it and don't go by what some hippy says.
-SW
-
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
-
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
-
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
-
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
-
Originally posted by AKS\/\/ulfe
For the last time: The war was NOT illegal, research it and don't go by what some hippy says.
-SW
I could do your homework for you, but you wouldn't really learn anything from it. How about I just give you a hint. If yer Google's not broke, go there and use "Illegal Invasion" as a search. Some stuff by "hippies", but lots from the international legal eagles too.
-
Originally posted by Arfann
I could do your homework for you, but you wouldn't really learn anything from it. How about I just give you a hint. If yer Google's not broke, go there and use "Illegal Invasion" as a search. Some stuff by "hippies", but lots from the international legal eagles too.
You could find articles supporting both sides.
-
Originally posted by Smut
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
Try "pre-meditated" invasion of a sovereign state. Saddam was a tyrant. Iraq violated the terms of the cease fire. These are issues to be dealt with via the UN or other international court. Not unilaterally by Dubya, using the disaster of 9/11 to get the sheep to back him up and give him congressional authority.
-
Could you define a "legal" war?
-
Originally posted by Mini D
Could you define a "legal" war?
Historically, that would be one that you win. This one is by default illegal, since the only way to win it would have been to not start it.
-
this war was completely legal.
-
That is single most stupid thought I have ever seen put down in print...
Congrats Arfann! :rolleyes:
-
LOL Grun
:D
-
Excellent comeback, cpxxx. Not only did you attack the the BB avatar, but you attacked the name. The last resort when out of arguments, usually. I particularly like how you tried to make out I would even think of arguing that Rumsfeld personally robbed Iraq.
As for Rumsfeld's remarks, you're arguing based on what wasn't said, where I am quoting Rumsfeld on what he did say.
"If you go from a repressive regime in that transition period, there is untidiness. Stuff happens ... And it's untidy. And freedom's untidy. And free people are free to make mistakes and commit crimes and do bad things."
Saving critical infrastructure is not strategically important? You should check on the part of the war aims under under 'hearts and minds'. Alleviating the humanitarian suffering is a critical part of that and has been emphasized by the Coalition time and time again.
As for the oil ministry - having that looted wouldn't destroy the oil or the pumping stations or the refinery.
-
Originally posted by Arfann
I could do your homework for you, but you wouldn't really learn anything from it. How about I just give you a hint. If yer Google's not broke, go there and use "Illegal Invasion" as a search. Some stuff by "hippies", but lots from the international legal eagles too.
You've made the assumption that the US is liable to the international community....sorry man....it's about whats good for the USA and those who chose to be our true friends.
This was not Vietnam.
-
I already did my homework, I could tell you to use Google and look up certain legality rulings by the British General Attorney or you could try your aforementioned of google and type in various search strings...
I would do YOUR homework for you, but it's obvious you didn't learn much from your own.
-SW
-
The British General Attorney of what?
-
of Britain? I didn't know you had more than one.
Here's the story:
http://www.breakingnews.ie/2003/03/16/story91854.html
However, rather than repeat myself, I will point you to this thread:
http://www.hitechcreations.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=82095
-SW
-
Hardly an objective opinion. Afterall, Britain is a combatant. Therefore, pretty irrelevant. It was impossible for him to say anything else.
-
Originally posted by Dowding
Hardly an objective opinion. Afterall, Britain is a combatant. Therefore, pretty irrelevant. It was impossible for him to say anything else.
That's a pretty self-serving statement. I dunno about Britain, but here in the US folks feel pretty free to express their displeasure at the government, including many in elected government offices. Maybe you folks aren't allowed freedom of speech?
-
You think anything is objective?
Anyone focusing on the legality of the war aside from those in power is doing so out of their own interests and because they already have a bias to one side or one issue.
Russia and France say the war was illegal, I wonder why?
Of course, when we see that Iraq was still non-compliant with the 16(I think) past resolutions and broke the cease-fire agreement, the war is legal.
-SW
-
Originally posted by GRUNHERZ
That is single most stupid thought I have ever seen put down in print...
Congrats Arfann! :rolleyes:
Well, if you don't understand it, it's never too late for adult education. Assuming you're an adult. If not, then stay in school!
-
Originally posted by Martlet
You could find articles supporting both sides.
Yep, as long as there are those who want it to be legal there will be arguments (invented as necessary) to make it seem so. Anyway it's a moot point since it's never illegal for the winner and, believe it or not, our side is winning against this third rate military non-power. Go figure.
-
Originally posted by Arfann
Try "pre-meditated" invasion of a sovereign state. Saddam was a tyrant. Iraq violated the terms of the cease fire. These are issues to be dealt with via the UN or other international court. Not unilaterally by Dubya, using the disaster of 9/11 to get the sheep to back him up and give him congressional authority.
I'm honestly surprised someone that seems as intelligent as you would fall back to this tired reasoning.
Twelve years of UN talk amounted to nothing. International court? LOL...another impotent idea. Saddam respected only force, and he was a gambler. He miscalculated US resolve in 1991 and had to be ejected in force from Kuwait. At that time the Iraqi government agree to terms which were promptly ignored once the threat of imminent force was removed. Post 9/11, only a timid fool would allow such an aggressive gambler to continue to defy the UN. 1441 is but the last resolution in a long string of ignored and useless paper from the UN dating back to 1990. "Inspections" resumed only under gunpoint, and it was clear Saddam was still playing the same game.
If you truly believe mere talk would have resolved things...then we must agree to disagree.
-Smut
-
Originally posted by Smut
I'm honestly surprised someone that seems as intelligent as you would fall back to this tired reasoning.
Twelve years of UN talk amounted to nothing. International court? LOL...another impotent idea. Saddam respected only force, and he was a gambler. He miscalculated US resolve in 1991 and had to be ejected in force from Kuwait. At that time the Iraqi government agree to terms which were promptly ignored once the threat of imminent force was removed. Post 9/11, only a timid fool would allow such an aggressive gambler to continue to defy the UN. 1441 is but the last resolution in a long string of ignored and useless paper from the UN dating back to 1990. "Inspections" resumed only under gunpoint, and it was clear Saddam was still playing the same game.
If you truly believe mere talk would have resolved things...then we must agree to disagree.
-Smut
Saddam was contained. He attacked noone but his own. That is not our problem or, if it is, there's lots of tyrants out there. Where do we start?
-
Its funny how the USA hating anti war crowds wants us to attack everyone else but Saddam.
Arfann are you so dumb, and yes I think you are, to not have noticed the small fact that Iraq was required to do certain things in accordance with the 1991 cease fire agreement and that they have not done them - and so they have violated the cease fire and it was in our right to resume the war.
We went after iraq for many reasons, and it was a unique situation that the majority of Americans felt could best be resolved by military action. Our president tried as has hard as possible to enlist world support and did so with the unanimous UNSC vote on resoulution 1441 - it was not our fault that, when the matter was pressed, the french and russians turned tail and decided that saddam hussein was more important to their national intersests than the welfare of the iraqi people or the threat posed by his quest for WMD.
I know you are sad that another west hating 3rd world dictator is gone, I know it just kills you that so many iraqis are happy that we liberated them, I know it's confusing to you that the US troops are not machine-gunnning down scores of iraqi protestors opposed to our presence ( notice how they can now protest freely), I know that it kills you that the arabs did not revolt, I know that it kills you to see the USA be succesful, I know how deeply you hate the USA, I know, I know how much it must suck to be you right now.. Go ahead, end it all, squeeze one off and never, ever, feel the pain again...
-
(http://www.overgrow.com/edge/gallery/17174/t/t_shady.jpg)
This made me laugh.
-
Originally posted by GRUNHERZ
Its funny how the USA hating anti war crowds wants us to attack everyone else but Saddam.
Arfann are you so dumb, and yes I think you are, to not have noticed the small fact that Iraq was required to do certain things in accordance with the 1991 cease fire agreement and that they have not done them - and so they have violated the cease fire and it was in our right to resume the war.
We went after iraq for many reasons, and it was a unique situation that the majority of Americans felt could best be resolved by military action. Our president tried as has hard as possible to enlist world support and did so with the unanimous UNSC vote on resoulution 1441 - it was not our fault that, when the matter was pressed, the french and russians turned tail and decided that saddam hussein was more important to their national intersests than the welfare of the iraqi people or the threat posed by his quest for WMD.
I know you are sad that another west hating 3rd world dictator is gone, I know it just kills you that so many iraqis are happy that we liberated them, I know it's confusing to you that the US troops are not machine-gunnning down scores of iraqi protestors opposed to our presence ( notice how they can now protest freely), I know that it kills you that the arabs did not revolt, I know that it kills you to see the USA be succesful, I know how deeply you hate the USA, I know, I know how much it must suck to be you right now.. Go ahead, end it all, squeeze one off and never, ever, feel the pain again...
Ah, the old personal attack mode, eh? Sorry to hear you're already out of ammo. Also sad to hear you've bought the whole line of crap out of the little weasel in the White House. The cease fire of '91 and resolution 1441 were specifically coalition/UN issues, to be handled by the UN. Do I love the UN? No. Do I think the UN is a paragon of effectiveness? No. Do I think the French and Russians have their own interests in mind? Yes. Do I think Dubya has used the 9/11 disaster to further his own agenda, bullying Congress and the US public into sending troops off to an illegal war completely outside any normal, righteous international standard of behavior? Yes. Nothing sad about a third world US hating dictator being gone, but it is sad that our method of eliminating him has created more hatred for us than you can even imagine. Hope you enjoy the Jihad you and yours are bringing to us.
Oh, and ending your message with more personal hatred tells me you are a natural for the Dubya Cheerleading Squad. You passed the audition. Now go back and memorize more Rush/Bush rubbage to spread around this board. I paid the price in SEA in 1967-71 to voice my opinion about the current state of affairs in spite of the vitriolic, hate filled spewage of you and yours. Thank you and good night.
-
My apoloies arfann, I didnt realize just quite how evil bush is... And there was allready a huge jihad against america unless you noticed, Im sure you wish we just stand around doing nothing and see them murder thousands of americans...
-
You think anything is objective?
You're the one using his evaluation as a valid argument. If nothing is objective, then his opinion is worthless and so is anybody else's.
-
Originally posted by AKIron
That's a pretty self-serving statement. I dunno about Britain, but here in the US folks feel pretty free to express their displeasure at the government, including many in elected government offices. Maybe you folks aren't allowed freedom of speech?
lol....oh wait you're actually serious?
Tronsky
-
Originally posted by GRUNHERZ
My apoloies arfann, I didnt realize just quite how evil bush is... And there was allready a huge jihad against america unless you noticed, Im sure you wish we just stand around doing nothing and see them murder thousands of americans...
Your apology is accepted.
Assuming the Jihad you refer to is the WTC disaster, that was carried out primarily by Saudis, led by a Saudi, based on religious radicalism. Saddam was (is?) a secular tyrant, who the religious folks detest (ed?). Our invasion of Iraq makes Saddam a martyr and makes us an even bigger devil/target in the Arab world than we were before.