alonzomourning23
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 26 (100%)
Hey at least we're not....... uh........ just screw it
- Thread starter alonzomourning23
- Start date
Photomotoz
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 12 (100%)
Well at least there is good chance it will stop in the near future as opposed to before.
zionoverfire
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 133 (100%)
[quote name='dtarasev']Well at least there is good chance it will stop in the near future as opposed to before.[/QUOTE]
Not really.:lol:
Not really.:lol:
It looks like that's a problem of Iraqis torturing Iraqis. I don't see it as the United States' fault. I hope this increases our resolve to stay until there is a free and democratic Iraq.
It's scary though, that they would degenerate into (what I can only assume is) sectarian violence.
It's almost as scary as these "Secret Prisons" we keep. This administration is scary.
It's scary though, that they would degenerate into (what I can only assume is) sectarian violence.
It's almost as scary as these "Secret Prisons" we keep. This administration is scary.
Metal Boss
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 1 (100%)
[quote name='Quillion']It looks like that's a problem of Iraqis torturing Iraqis.
[/QUOTE]
[/QUOTE]
Drocket
CAGiversary!
[quote name='Quillion']It looks like that's a problem of Iraqis torturing Iraqis. I don't see it as the United States' fault. I hope this increases our resolve to stay until there is a free and democratic Iraq.[/QUOTE]
I know its tempting to simply dismiss this as 'just brown people doing what brown people do'. The reality, though, is that this is what happens when law and order break down. When this invasion first began, the United States COULD have had a chance to actually establish some law and order. We didn't. We ignored looting. We disbanded the existing military structure which was already trained and could have been used to help keep order. We striped prisoners naked and played Jenga with them. We used white-phosphorus and other indiscriminate killing weapons in heavily populated areas. We've completely, totally, and utterly smashed the country, to the point where I honestly don't think we could ever put it back together, even if we had any credibility left in our attempt to do so.
Bush has a lot to answer for. Beyond the fact that he lied to the country to drag us into an unnecessary war, he's completely bungled that war from the get-go, ignoring his military advisors who said more troops would be needed. We HAD a chance to turn Iraq into a free and stable country, but Bush's incompetence let that opportunity slip between his fingers just like Bin Laden out of Tora Bora.
The Iraq war is over. We lost. All that's left now is to count how many more US soldiers have to die before our Great Leader admits failure.
I know its tempting to simply dismiss this as 'just brown people doing what brown people do'. The reality, though, is that this is what happens when law and order break down. When this invasion first began, the United States COULD have had a chance to actually establish some law and order. We didn't. We ignored looting. We disbanded the existing military structure which was already trained and could have been used to help keep order. We striped prisoners naked and played Jenga with them. We used white-phosphorus and other indiscriminate killing weapons in heavily populated areas. We've completely, totally, and utterly smashed the country, to the point where I honestly don't think we could ever put it back together, even if we had any credibility left in our attempt to do so.
Bush has a lot to answer for. Beyond the fact that he lied to the country to drag us into an unnecessary war, he's completely bungled that war from the get-go, ignoring his military advisors who said more troops would be needed. We HAD a chance to turn Iraq into a free and stable country, but Bush's incompetence let that opportunity slip between his fingers just like Bin Laden out of Tora Bora.
The Iraq war is over. We lost. All that's left now is to count how many more US soldiers have to die before our Great Leader admits failure.
[quote name='Drocket']I know its tempting to simply dismiss this as 'just brown people doing what brown people do'. The reality, though, is that this is what happens when law and order break down. [/quote]
Who said anything about 'brown' people? You're playing the race card a wee bit early.
Is this before or after we got rid of the enemy? You mean that enemy that is still fighting and hiding in mosques and behind women and children? And as far as looting and law and order goes, I think you have a delusion of grandeur if you think the millitary could stop all the looting. We can't even do this in our own country. It comes down to numbers- millions versus 140,000. You do the math. Since you think the army can work miracles, maybe we should send them to detroit to whip it in to shape?
Yes, a millitary who's command structure was loyal to Saddam. I'm sure they would just start taking orders from George Bush the next day, right? Not to mention the rank and file who've also sworn an oath to Saddam.
Thanks to the media who've painted that grandiose picture that we have tortured every iraqi and used phosphorus on every family in Iraq. You even bought the hype, as if all we have done there is torture people.
I think you have a lot to answer for. You're a spoon fed regurgitation machine who doesn't seem to have any curiosity about anything else in Iraq except for the media tabulation of destruction and death. I know more than a few soldiers serving and who have served there. And from their stories, things are not always and not only as they are reported by CNN.
Let me remind you that there are countless Iraqi families that are depending on us to remain there until the terrorists have been killed. People like you forget about those 'brown' people depending on us. Leaving now would be like handing over a child to a pedophile. All that's left isn't some selfish need to pull out to save your self-hating american ego. All that's left isn't to count body bags. All that's left are millions of 'brown' people waiting for peace, some dignity, some sort of pursuit of happiness. But I'm sure it would just be better to cut our losses and screw all those 'brown' people becuase they obviously don't count as people in your view. You are a hypocrite of the second worst kind. Your leaders demanding a quick exit are the first kind becuase they know they'll be screwing all those 'brown' people. You get a pass for ignorance.
Who said anything about 'brown' people? You're playing the race card a wee bit early.
Is this before or after we got rid of the enemy? You mean that enemy that is still fighting and hiding in mosques and behind women and children? And as far as looting and law and order goes, I think you have a delusion of grandeur if you think the millitary could stop all the looting. We can't even do this in our own country. It comes down to numbers- millions versus 140,000. You do the math. Since you think the army can work miracles, maybe we should send them to detroit to whip it in to shape?
Yes, a millitary who's command structure was loyal to Saddam. I'm sure they would just start taking orders from George Bush the next day, right? Not to mention the rank and file who've also sworn an oath to Saddam.
Thanks to the media who've painted that grandiose picture that we have tortured every iraqi and used phosphorus on every family in Iraq. You even bought the hype, as if all we have done there is torture people.
I think you have a lot to answer for. You're a spoon fed regurgitation machine who doesn't seem to have any curiosity about anything else in Iraq except for the media tabulation of destruction and death. I know more than a few soldiers serving and who have served there. And from their stories, things are not always and not only as they are reported by CNN.
Let me remind you that there are countless Iraqi families that are depending on us to remain there until the terrorists have been killed. People like you forget about those 'brown' people depending on us. Leaving now would be like handing over a child to a pedophile. All that's left isn't some selfish need to pull out to save your self-hating american ego. All that's left isn't to count body bags. All that's left are millions of 'brown' people waiting for peace, some dignity, some sort of pursuit of happiness. But I'm sure it would just be better to cut our losses and screw all those 'brown' people becuase they obviously don't count as people in your view. You are a hypocrite of the second worst kind. Your leaders demanding a quick exit are the first kind becuase they know they'll be screwing all those 'brown' people. You get a pass for ignorance.
Drocket
CAGiversary!
[quote name='bmulligan']Who said anything about 'brown' people? You're playing the race card a wee bit early.[/quote]
Face it, when you talk about 'them Iraqis', who apparently aren't capable of handling freedom even when its handed to them on a silver platter, its what you mean in the end. I'm just cutting to the chase.
Sorry, but the vast majority of them weren't in any way loyal to Saddam. They were serving in the military because it was what they needed to do to put food on the table for their families. When you suddenly put tens of thousands of trained soldiers out of work, though, and leave them to sit at home in the dark without running water (because we blew up their infastructure) without any way of providing for their family - well, its not hard to do the math.
Even if some of them WERE loyal to Saddam, what's a better place for them: somewhere where its easy to keep an eye on them (and where they may see that a better future is possible), or dump them in the middle of nowhere so they stew in their own anger?
I've spent quite a bit of time arguing the 'we broke it, we own it' theory in Iraq. I still think there was a time when we could have fixed things. That time is past. The Bush administration has so monumentally
ed up this war, it is, quite simply, unwinnable at this point. Its over, we lost, we just haven't admitted it yet. I don't want to leave 'brown people' behind to die - I've simply come to the conclusion that they're going to die no matter what we do. Its no longer about prevening an Iraqi civil war - they're in the middle of a civil war as we speak. As I said, the only question left is how many American soldiers are going to die before we admit defeat.
Face it, when you talk about 'them Iraqis', who apparently aren't capable of handling freedom even when its handed to them on a silver platter, its what you mean in the end. I'm just cutting to the chase.
It was after we got rid of the old enemy (Saddam), and before we created the new enemy (the insurgents) by blowing up their country and treating them like shit.
They couldn't have stopped all the looting, but they could have at least did SOMETHING. Instead, they ripped apart the existing power structure, then stood aside while things went to hell. Things going to hell was not in any way unexpected - the Bush administration was very clearly warned by experts what would happen and what needed to be done to avoid the problem. They simply ignored it.
Yep, completely loyal to Saddam.
Sorry, but the vast majority of them weren't in any way loyal to Saddam. They were serving in the military because it was what they needed to do to put food on the table for their families. When you suddenly put tens of thousands of trained soldiers out of work, though, and leave them to sit at home in the dark without running water (because we blew up their infastructure) without any way of providing for their family - well, its not hard to do the math.
Even if some of them WERE loyal to Saddam, what's a better place for them: somewhere where its easy to keep an eye on them (and where they may see that a better future is possible), or dump them in the middle of nowhere so they stew in their own anger?
Oh, so you mean we didn't torture EVERY Iraqi? Well, I guess everything is OK, then.
Far from it. I'm someone who's questioned and examined more than 99.9% of the population. And unfortunately, I'm seeing very little good coming out of Iraq, and absolutely no signs that that's going to change.
I've spent quite a bit of time arguing the 'we broke it, we own it' theory in Iraq. I still think there was a time when we could have fixed things. That time is past. The Bush administration has so monumentally
ed up this war, it is, quite simply, unwinnable at this point. Its over, we lost, we just haven't admitted it yet. I don't want to leave 'brown people' behind to die - I've simply come to the conclusion that they're going to die no matter what we do. Its no longer about prevening an Iraqi civil war - they're in the middle of a civil war as we speak. As I said, the only question left is how many American soldiers are going to die before we admit defeat.[quote name='Drocket']Face it, when you talk about 'them Iraqis', who apparently aren't capable of handling freedom even when its handed to them on a silver platter, its what you mean in the end. I'm just cutting to the chase.[/quote]
You obviously have me confused with someone else you were arguing with. I never said anything of the sort. Whether they are capable of it or not, an attempt to create a country where it is possible to maintain it is the least we owe them, not leaving prematurely to let a group of armed thugs(terrorists) take over.
Unknowingly you have just made a good argument for going to Iraq in the first place. We knew what was going on in Iraq and shoud have done something. Obviously they should have consulted you the day before the invasion.
You perhaps did not see or do not remember Rumsfeld's analysis of the 'looting'. It was a very small portion in scope an in time compared to the entire campaign of this war. God only knows why you are focusing on it now, as it is meaningless in the current state of affairs there. There is no looting going on now, so they must have done something about it, eh?
What are you, a pollster? Lets see some of your data. Now I think you're just talking out of your bunghole because you figured out how it makes noise.
They are not in a civil war. There is a contingency of fascist muslims who wish to rule all muslims by force. If we were to leave, they would instill their own version of what Islam should be and execute anyone who challenges their power. Leaving would effectively be , at least, akin to allowing them to become prisoners, at most, signing their death warrants.
You don't seem to be in a good position to judge the war as unwinable. Simply becuase there are still bombs going off doesn't mean things are complete chaos and we're losing. These terrorists are killing more muslims than americans and are making more enemies in the muslim communities every day with their indiscriminate killing of anyone who won't join them and anyone else who's just standing nearby. Instead of asking how many more Americans have to die, why don't you ask, how many future Americans can we save by eliminating this gang of thugs now? And how many Iraqis will we save in the process? But, of course I see from the last statement in the previous quote that you really only care for Americans, not those 'darkies.'
You see, I have a problem with you liberals who always claim to be advocates for the poor, the maltreated, the disenfranchised. But in a situation like this, you have no problem saying the poor, I don't care, the're not even Americans. Liberals claim to be against oppressive regimes yet would gladly turn Iraq over to Al Queda. Liberals claim that sacrifices may be necessary for the common good, yet you are unwilling to sacrifice now and kill terrorists in a 100 to 1 ratio. Liberals claim to stand for freedom and make the 'hard choices' for the common good, yet in this situation, running away would be the easy choice and destroy freedom, of Iraqis and Amreicans. Leaving Iraq now will not stop terrorists, it will empower them. The only thing that will stop them is a bullet.
Leaving Iraq now would validate your conclusion that we have lost, which is perhaps what you are after. You really don't care about the war, the common Iraqis, or our troops. Your goal is really to see George Bush be defeated, isn't it? You want to hear an "I'm sorry" from his lips for your personal pleasure.
You obviously have me confused with someone else you were arguing with. I never said anything of the sort. Whether they are capable of it or not, an attempt to create a country where it is possible to maintain it is the least we owe them, not leaving prematurely to let a group of armed thugs(terrorists) take over.
You obviously have no concept of who we are actually fighting over there. Not only that, but you seem to be ignorant of whom they are fighting and terrorizing as well.
Unknowingly you have just made a good argument for going to Iraq in the first place. We knew what was going on in Iraq and shoud have done something. Obviously they should have consulted you the day before the invasion.
You perhaps did not see or do not remember Rumsfeld's analysis of the 'looting'. It was a very small portion in scope an in time compared to the entire campaign of this war. God only knows why you are focusing on it now, as it is meaningless in the current state of affairs there. There is no looting going on now, so they must have done something about it, eh?
In america, our service people swear an oath to the constitution, not to George Bush. In Iraq, they swore an oath to Saddam and so did the command structure. Diposing Saddam displaced an allegience,a basis for existing, and in effect, disintegrated the chain of command altogether. In the US, the president is the commander in chief. What do you do when Saddam is gone and there's no constitutional basis for succession...? There are more things than food and fear that motivate men.
What are you, a pollster? Lets see some of your data. Now I think you're just talking out of your bunghole because you figured out how it makes noise.
I've spent quite a bit of time arguing the 'we broke it, we own it' theory in Iraq. I still think there was a time when we could have fixed things. That time is past. The Bush administration has so monumentally
They are not in a civil war. There is a contingency of fascist muslims who wish to rule all muslims by force. If we were to leave, they would instill their own version of what Islam should be and execute anyone who challenges their power. Leaving would effectively be , at least, akin to allowing them to become prisoners, at most, signing their death warrants.
You don't seem to be in a good position to judge the war as unwinable. Simply becuase there are still bombs going off doesn't mean things are complete chaos and we're losing. These terrorists are killing more muslims than americans and are making more enemies in the muslim communities every day with their indiscriminate killing of anyone who won't join them and anyone else who's just standing nearby. Instead of asking how many more Americans have to die, why don't you ask, how many future Americans can we save by eliminating this gang of thugs now? And how many Iraqis will we save in the process? But, of course I see from the last statement in the previous quote that you really only care for Americans, not those 'darkies.'
You see, I have a problem with you liberals who always claim to be advocates for the poor, the maltreated, the disenfranchised. But in a situation like this, you have no problem saying
the poor, I don't care, the're not even Americans. Liberals claim to be against oppressive regimes yet would gladly turn Iraq over to Al Queda. Liberals claim that sacrifices may be necessary for the common good, yet you are unwilling to sacrifice now and kill terrorists in a 100 to 1 ratio. Liberals claim to stand for freedom and make the 'hard choices' for the common good, yet in this situation, running away would be the easy choice and destroy freedom, of Iraqis and Amreicans. Leaving Iraq now will not stop terrorists, it will empower them. The only thing that will stop them is a bullet.Leaving Iraq now would validate your conclusion that we have lost, which is perhaps what you are after. You really don't care about the war, the common Iraqis, or our troops. Your goal is really to see George Bush be defeated, isn't it? You want to hear an "I'm sorry" from his lips for your personal pleasure.
alonzomourning23
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 26 (100%)
I try not to pay attention to mulligans posts, but I just want to comment on the whole looting thing. It was not small scale, and destroyed much of Iraq's heritage link. And there is looting is still going on, from the previous link, talking about the looting and destrction of cultural sites:
That article is from april, 2005.
Also some is more secretive link. And, as for our role, there is also evidence that we not only did not care, some u.s. military people encouraged it:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3003393.stm
Oh, and you mentioned a comment rumsfeld made. It wouldn't happen to be this one, would it?
http://www.cnn.com/2003/US/04/11/sprj.irq.pentagon/
That article is from april, 2005.
Also some is more secretive link. And, as for our role, there is also evidence that we not only did not care, some u.s. military people encouraged it:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3003393.stm
Oh, and you mentioned a comment rumsfeld made. It wouldn't happen to be this one, would it?
http://www.cnn.com/2003/US/04/11/sprj.irq.pentagon/
Actually it was Rumsfeld's description of Iraqis as an oppressed people "blowing off steam". Many touted this comment as a dismissal, or non-acknowledgement of the problem but it was simply an analysis of the situation. He was describing a natural occurance.
Then, after a barrage of sensationalized reports of widespread looting and reports that thousands of treasures of antiquity being destroyed forever we found out this:
Capt. Jason Conroy recalls most of the large antiquities were protected by foam, and about 98 percent of the glass display cases were empty but not broken. He said Iraqi officials told him the artifacts had been stored in vaults underneath the museum itself.
What puzzles me, alonzo, is that you would so redily excuse the looting in and around Paris as an understandable act of an oppressed people, yet you will not give the same concession to Iraqis who have lived under a Stalinist type regime for a generation. You must admit they probably had a more legitimate reason for their action, or, at the very least, had much more steam to be blown off. Maybe our troops were just allowing Iraqis to assist in the re-taking of their own country from the hands of a millitary dictator. At least they weren't shooting at rescue helicopters.
And as far as looting still going on, from your 'secret' link that still cites the Bagdad museum looting as a tragic fact when there is evidence to the contrary quotes this:
I think our millitary has enough to tackle - from terrorist gangs to rebuilding infrastructure than having to worry about the sanctity of precious archaeological sites. Leave it to you, again, to be more concerned about clay pots than real, live human beings.
Then, after a barrage of sensationalized reports of widespread looting and reports that thousands of treasures of antiquity being destroyed forever we found out this:
Capt. Jason Conroy recalls most of the large antiquities were protected by foam, and about 98 percent of the glass display cases were empty but not broken. He said Iraqi officials told him the artifacts had been stored in vaults underneath the museum itself.
What puzzles me, alonzo, is that you would so redily excuse the looting in and around Paris as an understandable act of an oppressed people, yet you will not give the same concession to Iraqis who have lived under a Stalinist type regime for a generation. You must admit they probably had a more legitimate reason for their action, or, at the very least, had much more steam to be blown off. Maybe our troops were just allowing Iraqis to assist in the re-taking of their own country from the hands of a millitary dictator. At least they weren't shooting at rescue helicopters.
And as far as looting still going on, from your 'secret' link that still cites the Bagdad museum looting as a tragic fact when there is evidence to the contrary quotes this:
I think our millitary has enough to tackle - from terrorist gangs to rebuilding infrastructure than having to worry about the sanctity of precious archaeological sites. Leave it to you, again, to be more concerned about clay pots than real, live human beings.
alonzomourning23
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 26 (100%)
There is no evidence that paris officials are just letting it happen, or that they don't care. Their goal is to be more careful to avoid inflaming tensions (which happened the first few days they they tried applying force, and the death of 2 boys is what sparked it), and to avoid long term problems that a violent police attack would likely result in.
On the other hand the u.s. government showed no concern and there is evidence that ground troops encouraged it. They protected some key facilities (mainly oil), but did nothing to protect citizens from gaining access to toxic material, which is what happened when some chemical storages, weapon facilities, nucleur sites (gotta give em credit, MOST of the uranium has been accounted for) etc. were looted. Also there's the use of some of that looted equipment, barrels full of yellow cake were often emptied and then sold to other iraqi's by the looters to use for food, water etc.
The looting would not have been very difficult to reduce (not stop, reduce) if there was any effort at all.
The looting should have been expected and planned for, but it wasn't. It should have been part of the pre war planning.
Also (in purely economic terms), when Iraq is stable someday, destroyed artifacts and heritage sites have a negative effect on tourism.
[quote name='alonzomourning23']There is no evidence that paris officials are just letting it happen, or that they don't care. [/quote]
That wasn't my point. The point was that you excused the Paris rioting as a blowing off of tension for being disenfranchised citizens, but Rumsfeld get criticized for saying the same thing. You also said that a firm use of force to quelch the rioting shouldn't be implemented, but it should have been in Iraq?
So, basically, they got their ands on some chemical weapons of mass destruction and nuclear material that supposedly Saddam didn't have. Thanks for validating the entire Iraq campaign. Geroge appreciates your support.
I love how everyone is now a war expert and makes absolute claims on what was part of the pre-war planning and what wasn't. Since we are not privy to the contingency plans of the field commanders, I don't think we can factually say that no looting was expected or that no effort was made to stop looting. Just becuase there were no TV crews filming soldiers stopping looters doesn't mean there weren't any. It just means that they didn't make the final cut because watching looting film makes better copy.
But there has to be a stable Iraq to begin with. And that won't come with having to protect hoels in the sand and paintings instead of cities and oil pipelines.
That wasn't my point. The point was that you excused the Paris rioting as a blowing off of tension for being disenfranchised citizens, but Rumsfeld get criticized for saying the same thing. You also said that a firm use of force to quelch the rioting shouldn't be implemented, but it should have been in Iraq?
So, basically, they got their ands on some chemical weapons of mass destruction and nuclear material that supposedly Saddam didn't have. Thanks for validating the entire Iraq campaign. Geroge appreciates your support.
I love how everyone is now a war expert and makes absolute claims on what was part of the pre-war planning and what wasn't. Since we are not privy to the contingency plans of the field commanders, I don't think we can factually say that no looting was expected or that no effort was made to stop looting. Just becuase there were no TV crews filming soldiers stopping looters doesn't mean there weren't any. It just means that they didn't make the final cut because watching looting film makes better copy.
But there has to be a stable Iraq to begin with. And that won't come with having to protect hoels in the sand and paintings instead of cities and oil pipelines.
Drocket
CAGiversary!
[quote name='bmulligan']That wasn't my point. The point was that you excused the Paris rioting as a blowing off of tension for being disenfranchised citizens, but Rumsfeld get criticized for saying the same thing. You also said that a firm use of force to quelch the rioting shouldn't be implemented, but it should have been in Iraq? [/quote]
I know it may be hard to believe, but there's actually a number of possible degrees of action between 'sitting around doing nothing' and 'blowing off the head of anything that moves'. Having US troops simply be present to stand around looking mean probably would have discouraged a vast amount of the looting.
Of course, there's really no connection at all between what happened in Iraq and France because the people in Iraq weren't rioting anyway. They pretty much just went on a looting spree after local law enforcement collapsed. They weren't 'rebelling' against anything - they just saw a bunch of semi-valuable stuff sitting around unguarded, so they took it.
The problem is that we WEREN'T protecting the cities (which was, you know, where the paintings and the like were...) The ONLY things we were protecting was the oil facilities. Which kind of gives you a clue as to why we invaded Iraq in the first place...
I know it may be hard to believe, but there's actually a number of possible degrees of action between 'sitting around doing nothing' and 'blowing off the head of anything that moves'. Having US troops simply be present to stand around looking mean probably would have discouraged a vast amount of the looting.
Of course, there's really no connection at all between what happened in Iraq and France because the people in Iraq weren't rioting anyway. They pretty much just went on a looting spree after local law enforcement collapsed. They weren't 'rebelling' against anything - they just saw a bunch of semi-valuable stuff sitting around unguarded, so they took it.
Things can be dangerous without having a use as a weapon. It was a known fact that Saddam had tons of yellow cake. Its also a known fact that yellow cake isn't particularly dangerous unless you, I dunno, steal the barrels it came in and keep them in your house. (In case you're wondering why Saddam's stockpile of yellow cake wasn't used in the run up to the war, its because 'yellow cake is so safe that Bush Sr. didn't even bother to take it away from Saddam' would have kind of screwed up their use of forged documents claiming Saddam was trying to buy more.)
Actually, we do know quite a bit about the war planning, both from released documents and, more importantly, from former war planners who were let go for their disagreements with the Bush administration. Looting was completely expected (long before the war even started. Its basically just a given in any situation), and military planners wanted to take action to stop it. They weren't permitted because the people calling the shots (the Bush administration) had their heads too far up their asses.
The problem is that we WEREN'T protecting the cities (which was, you know, where the paintings and the like were...) The ONLY things we were protecting was the oil facilities. Which kind of gives you a clue as to why we invaded Iraq in the first place...
alonzomourning23
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 26 (100%)
Drocket pretty much covered my response. The only thing I'll add is with looting. If you have criminal elements looting valuable goods, you're only supplying them with a source of funds. That does have an effect of stability. Iraq still wouldn't be safe (relative to other non war torn countries) if there was no insurgency. Crime is rampant.
[quote name='"drocket"']I know it may be hard to believe, but there's actually a number of possible degrees of action between 'sitting around doing nothing' and 'blowing off the head of anything that moves'. Having US troops simply be present to stand around looking mean probably would have discouraged a vast amount of the looting.[/quote]
This is exactly my point. Alonzo, however, will take the most lax degree and parade it as evidence of US ineptitude becuase they allowed these things to happen. Alonzo lives in a world where the controlling government makes everything according to plan and expects perfect order and control of a civillian population from troops during a chaotic event such as an invasion. Not once has he considered the possibility that a cajoled civillian group could be a strategic and effective diversion and millitary tactic during the taking of a city. I'm sure he never considered any other possibilities becuase his mind has already been made up for him by his superiors.
Did I say no looting took place? Of course not. What I refuse to believe, becuase of lack of evidence, is that it was as widespread, as depleting in valuable resources as reported, and is continuing to this day to the same degree as I type this statement.
[quote name='alonzomourning23']Drocket pretty much covered my response. The only thing I'll add is with looting. If you have criminal elements looting valuable goods, you're only supplying them with a source of funds. That does have an effect of stability. Iraq still wouldn't be safe (relative to other non war torn countries) if there was no insurgency. Crime is rampant.[/QUOTE]
First of all yellowcake is just oxidized uranium, drawn out from ore, virtually harmless (though, not entirely) since it is not enriched. Second, there is no evidence that nuclear power facilities or any other were looted under the watch of american troops. Save one news article that suggested american troops were gesturing to iraqis to go ahead and loot, I don't see any other evidence that supports your theory that we encouraged the entire population to go crazy and steal everything in sight. Again, you take this one suspect example and parade it as gospel and evidence of a widespread epidemic without proof.
Your antiquity theft from the Bagdad museum was debunked in a rarely repeated news story, yet you cling to any news that paints the US in a dark light. Why is that, alonzo? Do you want us to fail? Do you have a deep seeded need to justify the terrorist haterd of us ? Do you need a good cause to follow or do you just need another reason to validate your hate for republicans?
Why don't you do some research, Alonzo, and tell us the crime statistics in Iraq before and after the occupation since you boldly claim that crime is rampant in Iraq. We need an objective standard to judge our effecrtiveness in this campaign. BTW, good luck getting accurate statistics of Saddam's army's crimes against civillians before the war started, I suspect they didn't keep very accurate records.
This is exactly my point. Alonzo, however, will take the most lax degree and parade it as evidence of US ineptitude becuase they allowed these things to happen. Alonzo lives in a world where the controlling government makes everything according to plan and expects perfect order and control of a civillian population from troops during a chaotic event such as an invasion. Not once has he considered the possibility that a cajoled civillian group could be a strategic and effective diversion and millitary tactic during the taking of a city. I'm sure he never considered any other possibilities becuase his mind has already been made up for him by his superiors.
Did I say no looting took place? Of course not. What I refuse to believe, becuase of lack of evidence, is that it was as widespread, as depleting in valuable resources as reported, and is continuing to this day to the same degree as I type this statement.
[quote name='alonzomourning23']Drocket pretty much covered my response. The only thing I'll add is with looting. If you have criminal elements looting valuable goods, you're only supplying them with a source of funds. That does have an effect of stability. Iraq still wouldn't be safe (relative to other non war torn countries) if there was no insurgency. Crime is rampant.[/QUOTE]
First of all yellowcake is just oxidized uranium, drawn out from ore, virtually harmless (though, not entirely) since it is not enriched. Second, there is no evidence that nuclear power facilities or any other were looted under the watch of american troops. Save one news article that suggested american troops were gesturing to iraqis to go ahead and loot, I don't see any other evidence that supports your theory that we encouraged the entire population to go crazy and steal everything in sight. Again, you take this one suspect example and parade it as gospel and evidence of a widespread epidemic without proof.
Your antiquity theft from the Bagdad museum was debunked in a rarely repeated news story, yet you cling to any news that paints the US in a dark light. Why is that, alonzo? Do you want us to fail? Do you have a deep seeded need to justify the terrorist haterd of us ? Do you need a good cause to follow or do you just need another reason to validate your hate for republicans?
Why don't you do some research, Alonzo, and tell us the crime statistics in Iraq before and after the occupation since you boldly claim that crime is rampant in Iraq. We need an objective standard to judge our effecrtiveness in this campaign. BTW, good luck getting accurate statistics of Saddam's army's crimes against civillians before the war started, I suspect they didn't keep very accurate records.
bread's done