| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Undertoad Sunday Mar 30 12:19 PM |
3/30/2003: US soldier carries injured Iraqi soldier
Elspode Sunday Mar 30 12:26 PM One thing is for certain, here...the Iraqi who has been wounded, captured and subsequently carried on the back of the American Imperialist Dog (tm) has not yet been strapped to a bed frame and electrocuted nor yet had a gun placed to his forehead and the trigger pulled. Nothing But Net Sunday Mar 30 12:28 PM That is gonna hurt tomorrow. xoxoxoBruce Sunday Mar 30 12:47 PM I heard our frontline troops were short of food. Is he taking him to the cook? Naw, he's the typical soft hearted american schmuck taking pity on everyone. If the tables were turned, I'd bet he'd be dragged by the heels or just shot. Also, if he had a weapon on his belt near where the prisoners hand is he'd be in trouble. Nothing But Net Sunday Mar 30 01:16 PM Who pissed in your popcorn? xoxoxoBruce Sunday Mar 30 02:16 PM Who pissed on my popcorn? The Iraqis, the Somalies, the Serbs, the Croations, the Vietnamise the Koreans, The Japanese, the Germans and every other bastard that's murdered an American GI that tried to show some compassion. This is not "Cops". This Kojedub Sunday Mar 30 02:23 PM Um, I bet saving the wounded is part of his orders. One of the main points of this war is to make a good impression on the locals, right? Elspode Sunday Mar 30 02:27 PM I think Bruce was being sarcastic, and him calling our soldiers shmucks was an affectionate statement, NBN. I think we're all pissed off that despite being a conquering force, we're attempting to minimize the inhumanity (if that is possible in war) and we are being kidnapped and executed for our trouble. Nothing But Net Sunday Mar 30 02:29 PM Quote:
Let's call it 'friendly fire'. xoxoxoBruce Sunday Mar 30 05:59 PM Sorry. wolf Sunday Mar 30 11:32 PM I find that some motrin, and an hour or so on the range sorts me out. arcterex Monday Mar 31 12:57 AM The only problem with the "they are executing our guys" thing is that this "news" is coming from places like fox and cnn, which aren't the most crediable IMO. Now that's the only place I've heard things like that though, if there is a source that doesn't come off like a reality tv show, I will stand corrected, but lets not take anything seen on TV (especially from "The War Room") as fact juju Monday Mar 31 01:50 AM I heard a reporter on CNN say that he personally saw footage of the American POWs, and that some of them were most certainly dead (shot in the head). But of course, they aren't showing the footage of the POWs out of concern for the families. Anyway, his word is good enough for me. He's wasn't just passing on something that some official told him -- he saw it himself. Uryoces Monday Mar 31 02:22 AM Sometimes, it just feels good to save someone, anyone, even if they may have been just trying to kill you. smoothmoniker Monday Mar 31 02:30 AM Quote:
I'm fine with the idea that central command is being intentional and purposeful in what they say and show, and that the intent is to bolster PR for the war. I'm fine with the idea that the White House, the Pentagon, the Cabinet, and their "invisible hands" among the pundits and analysts are spinning the data to suit their own ends. I may not agree, but I can grant the defensibility of the premise. What I find very difficult to believe is the the Media (capital M) is somehow complicit in an attempt to spin the war in favor of the United States, to the extent that they would alter numbers of casualties, misreport troop movements, grant a false pretext regarding the disposition of POWs, etc. The idea that hundreds of reporters, dozens of US media outlets, and the ubiquitous editors, copy writers, anchors and hosts would all be willing to misrepresent the actual events transpiring is highly implausible. The impartiality and objectivity of the media is a standard held very dearly among these institutions, and politiking aside for the moment, I think it is an ideal that is largely upheld. At the very least we ought to grant that the imperfect instantiation of the ideal found in the american media is the best instantiation yet available. Witness Pravda, Al-Jezeera, and The Sun (page3 aside) as the counter-evidence of the claim. -sm Elspode Monday Mar 31 09:14 AM Quote:
I think that is pretty reasonable evidence, don't you? russotto Monday Mar 31 01:20 PM "War crimes" The sad thing is that they're depending on the USs relative decency in order to commit these acts. The ideas of certain actions as war crimes didn't come about for any noble purpose -- it started as pure tit-for-tat self-interest. hscohen Monday Mar 31 04:08 PM The Chinese-Russian Coalition invades your part of the USA, with bombers, tanks, cruise missiles,... the whole conventional shebang,... in overwhelming numbers. slang Monday Mar 31 05:06 PM Quote:
We should also remember that even our soldiers treat the Iraqis better than their "leaders" in most cases. But seriously, point taken. I can only imagine what a fustercluck it is over there. warch Monday Mar 31 06:19 PM Its the hearts and minds campaign. Looks like a tough sell, but for everyone's sake, I hope it works. Torrere Saturday Apr 5 11:41 PM I am amazed at the differences between the equipment of the American soldier and the Iraqi soldier. I really hope that they stripped the Iraqi soldier down before the picture, and that wasn't how we was supposed to be all the time. xoxoxoBruce Sunday Apr 6 12:54 AM You don't need shoes when you live on a beach. Bitmap Sunday Apr 6 04:39 AM Photoshoped Note the Healthy glow around the Soldiers, I don't mind that this was edited though, because its Content is the same It looks like all the Photoshoping did was change the back ground. Wich could be understandable considering what could be back there. There could be a bunch of dead and bloody soldiers, or a city sky line that will give away the location of those troops, lots of things. Torrere Sunday Apr 6 09:53 PM Some of our soldiers are good kind folk. That's what the picture displays. quzah Sunday Apr 6 10:23 PM Quote:
[scenario] The rest of the world has bigger guns than us. The rest of the world decides they don't like us to have big guns. The rest of the world tells the US to get rid of their government, disarm, and allow the rest of the world to decide what our new form of governemnt is. (Subsequently, the rest of the world will then plunder our natural resources, and call it 'revitalizing the economy' or some shit. But that's a seperate topic for a seperate thread.) [/scenario] Now what the hell do you think the US is going to do? Do you really believe the US would just willingly punt the Pres, the Congress, the Senate just because the rest of the world told us to? Hell no. How about the "good old boys" up in the hills? You think they're going to sit by while troops drive up and down the roads in trucks and tanks? Hell no. No one* is just going to sit there and watch their country be taken over just because some one else decides we're bad for no apparent reason.** It's absurd for us and "our media" to pose stupid questions like: "Why would they disguise themselves as civillians?" "Why would they attack under guise of surrender?" "How on earth..." It's just stupid. As to the other poster who stated the reason you don't do this and that is because you hope to get your army back... Get rea! Do you really think we're going to give them their army back? Do you really think that after the war we're just going to let them do whatever they want? Consider: You are a 'good old boy', you're doing your 'patriotic duity', you join the military. No, not every single soldier is some wacked out extremest. I really really doubt that. Anyway, as such, you're ordered to go hold this, go take that, go do whatever. You know you're going to get slaughtered. You're vastly outgunned. Still, you're not about to hand your country over to a bunch of invaders. What do you do? Play nice? Fuck no. *There is an exception to every rule. **Iraq has done what exactly over the last decade? Oh that's right, not a fucking thing. Some threat. Side note, see North Korea. Some how they aren't worthy of invasion because why... Oh yeah, they have no OIL. They openly proclaim they have nuke potential. But then, who wants rice fields, right? Where's the money in that? IIRC, I believe I saw an estimated 120 trillion in oil sitting in Iraq. No, no motivation there. It's because they're so evil that we're 'saving the world from them'. Quzah. Uryoces Monday Apr 7 04:19 AM The reason why the rest of the world doesn't invade us is partly due to you, quzah [and partly due to the hillbillies and aircraft carriers]. I myself am not sure what I can add to a conversation that would not make the rest of the world hate us, other than "Could I please have some more hummus and pita, and another cup of Turkish coffee". Any viewpoint has it's supporters here in the good old US of A. That's the part I'm proud of, that's the part I don't really see elsewhere in the world. Torrere Monday Apr 7 11:23 PM Maybe we will develop 'smart blocks' of concrete that have computer guided accuracy, so that our concrete blocks aren't wasted on splashing sand. Uryoces Tuesday Apr 8 04:12 AM Quote:
arz Tuesday Apr 8 02:01 PM Yes, they are essentially the BDU (bomb dummy unit) version of a bomb body with a guidance kit on it. The result a steerable concrete bomb. By the way, there are quite a few of these guidance kits nowadays - I saw some for 500 pound Mk 82s the other day. BrianR Tuesday Apr 8 08:52 PM The MiG was obviously there as a training aid to the ttech school...teaching aspiring airplane mechanics to work on aircraft! wolf Tuesday Apr 8 09:48 PM I'll bet the kid who spent ALL YEAR picking up parts from the desert and reassembling that thing was PISSED when his final project got creamed. slang Tuesday Apr 8 10:05 PM Quote:
Your rantings may prove correct in the future but for right now it seems as though you are from another planet. There was an 8 year period I went through not too long ago that I felt the same passion and anger for national and world events. It was the Clinton administration. Hang tight, limber up your voting finger and get your ass to the polls come next election (provided you are an American and count in the big picture). quzah Wednesday Apr 9 05:52 AM Quote:
Let's get real here. This is not a fight about "liberation". It's a fight about oil. If it was simply billed as such, I'd have much less a problem with it. Sure, I'd still be against it, but at lest I wouldn't have to be fed my daily dose of bullshit by the media. Again, let's face some facts. Iraq has done exactly what evil in the last decade? Oh, that's right, nothing. They're starving over there why? Well, that's a nice little thing called sanctions. Ask North Korea about it if you get the chance. Sure, they could abandon their entire military structures and try and feed their country, but again, the only reason anyone at all ever starves in the world is because of bickering goverments. It's definately not for lack of food being produced world wide. Quote:
Quote:
Ah well, they say ignorance is bliss. Is it really? Let me know. For the record, nothing I write is "emotional". I'm always just a cranky fucker. Life is far to short to worry about keeping up personal appearances and if person X likes me or not. It's an opinion, it may invoke thought, it may not. Either way, I just don't care. Quzah. Elspode Wednesday Apr 9 09:26 AM Quzah said: "Iraq has done exactly what evil in the last decade? Oh, that's right, nothing." elSicomoro Wednesday Apr 9 12:03 PM From here on out, if I hear any mouthbreather mention anything about the 2000 election in tandem with this war, I will only be able to assume that they truly are unintelligent. Undertoad Wednesday Apr 9 01:22 PM Spode, I saw that MSNBC bit.. here's the accompanying story. juju Wednesday Apr 9 01:39 PM Quote:
Now, if you're saying that this shouldn't be connected to the war, then I don't disagree. But if you're saying that it has no merit at all, then please tell me how I'm wrong. dave Wednesday Apr 9 01:55 PM Our very own russotto has described, in detail, how the votes would have had to have been counted for Gore to win. And none of them make sense. It's been examined, and Bush won Florida. I'm not going to re-post it, because I don't feel like digging it up, but if you're truly interested, pull up russotto's posts and look for comments on the topic. Shouldn't take too long. juju Wednesday Apr 9 01:55 PM Quote:
I think this is what you're doing here. Because if we use your logic, then we would never be able to attack any country that exports oil, for any reason. Because even if if the reason were justified, people would still conclude that it was just for oil. It's true that it <i>could</i> be just for oil. But it's also true that it could be for liberation, or to prevent a future threat. You need evidence before you can start discarding potential causes. Real evidence, not speculation. Quote:
Quote:
Elspode Wednesday Apr 9 01:56 PM Yup...that's the one. Un-fucking-believable. But clearly true. No one can train people to act that well in a short time. This shit happened to them, and for my money, stopping the SOB Hussein and his sadistic cronies from inflicting this sort of treatment on his fellow beings is why we are there. I'm sure there's oil, power and politics entangled in all of this as well - I'm not Pollyanna - but at least the new regieme will have to look over their shoulders before they do the same shit. Uryoces Wednesday Apr 9 02:55 PM Quote:
A Taste of Armageddon - Star Trek - the original series That was one of the truest speeches I have every heard anyone give. Elspode Wednesday Apr 9 03:01 PM One Day at a Time...can Killaholics Anonymous borrow that from AA, you think? Uryoces Thursday Apr 10 02:02 AM Hi my name's Mike. quzah Thursday Apr 10 08:40 PM Quote:
Note, I did not say each country produces enough food. I said the world produces enough food to feed its population. I've seen the above statement/topic quoted many times, though I cannot find the exact link I was looking for. According to here , and here there will be ample food. Like I said, the only thing keeping people starving, is lack of actual distribution. I'm to believe sanctions have nothing at all to do with this? Back to the topic at hand. By "evil" I mean exactly, what evil has Iraq done to the rest of the world? Seriously, the "reason" we invaded was because they had "weapons of mass destruction", right? Go back to the beginning. The original intent was not to "liberate the people of Iraq". It was to kill Saddam because we didn't supposedly didn't like his big guns. It had nothing at all to do with liberating his country. When the war started, it was not to help is people. This is just one of those "added bonuses" that we can now use as a banner to carry to get us support from the world and the American people. You're fooling yourself if you believe otherwise. Again, like I said, go back to the "original reason" for the war. We invaded because we didn't like what the UN inspectors weren't finding. And like I said, Iraq has done what evil with their WOMD in the last decade? Oh, that's right, nothing. I never said there weren't evil people in Iraq. I never said they treated their people nicely. I was using the original context of the invasion of Iraq. We invaded because we didn't like their allaged big guns. Back to my original post: How would you like it if the world (or any given country) invaded us because they didn't like our guns? That is the whole cause of the war. That is the stated cause or reason for invading. We didn't like that they said they had none. We decided they did. We went in to find them. Now we're supposedly liberating their people. I'm wrong here how? My original hypothetical also stands. What we're doing to Iraq is the same as if some one else had bigger guns, and decided to tell us what to do. It's that simple. As per someone mentioning that "people like you Quzah are why the US doesn't get invaded" ... What? The reason we don't get invaded is because we do have the biggest WOMD. It has nothing to do with me sitting around voicing my opinion on the war. People don't not invade because they don't like my opinion. That's absurd. Understand the context of my post and you'll understand the post. Quzah. quzah Thursday Apr 10 08:42 PM Quote:
Quzah. juju Friday Apr 11 05:18 AM Quote:
Let's see, how about when Saddam's forces invaded Iran, or the time they invaded Kuwait? What about the time they started lobbing scud missles into Saudia Arabia and Israel? Quote:
In the end, their intent doesn't matter. Only the consequences matter. And in this case, I think that the good far, far outweights the bad in this scenario. Sure, I'd rather they not go around invading countries willy-nilly. But have no control over that. And I see no reason to rage against the war after the fact when so much good is coming out of it. Quote:
I agree that the U.S. administration started the war because of the purposes you stated. I agree that their arguments don't make much sense. However, the liberation of an opressed people is not only useful as a propaganda and coercion tool. It is a wonderful thing in it's own right. In my opinion, it's a good thing perpetrated for the wrong reasons. I think it justifies the war even if it was started for the wrong reasons. Quote:
<blockquote> Quote:
It seems clear that even you don't believe what you really said. Quote:
The statement is false, because you can't blame the government in every single case of starvation. What about people who get trapped in mines or caves, can't get out, and starve to death? Is that the fault of bickering governments? quzah Friday Apr 11 09:11 AM Quote:
Incidently, we're the ones who aided them against Iran, no? Also, we're the ones who sold them the shit they used on their own people, correct? So really, again, you're only the bad guy if we decide you are. Today Iraq is again the bad guy. For the past ten years, they weren't. Or maybe they weren't important politicly at the time because there wasn't a Bush in the Whitehouse? One can only speculate... I'm sure some day Korea will be worthy enough of us attacking them for an equally good reason. We'll all argue that we're liberating the North Koreans from their horrible goverment. We'll wave banners and declare ourselves the champion of the day. The fact will still remain: You're only a bad guy if today we decide you're worth attacking. Otherwise, we don't care about you. Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
I'll be more specific next time. TTFN. Quzah. juju Friday Apr 11 11:01 AM It's been pointed out to me repeatedly throughout my stay here at the Cellar that you cannot make generalizations without some debate-monger getting all up in a tizzy. Leus Friday Apr 11 02:25 PM Amen. Bitmap Friday Apr 11 03:07 PM No you're not; sometimes I wish we had A section dedicated for the semantic rebuttal arguments. Elspode Friday Apr 11 03:41 PM Sometimes is properly spelled as a single word, the appropriate contraction for 'you are' is you're, it would have been more proper to use a semicolon following 'your not', the personal pronoun 'I' should be capitalized, and a proper sentence is begun with a capital. {insert icon of someone ducking here}. xoxoxoBruce Friday Apr 11 05:23 PM Quote:
Leus Friday Apr 11 06:57 PM Glad to see we have recovered our composture
|
| |