OT: Why are they dancing in the streets?



Status
Not open for further replies.
When did the fundamentalists take over? I missed that on the news.

Rob

"Slider2699" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> "Pieter Litchfield" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> > And my personal favorite - they wouldn't let american soldiers near a
> mosque
> > because they are Holy sites, but then a crowd just butchered two Muslim clerics INSIDE a mosque.
> > Ok..... I don't get it "Slider2699" <[email protected]> wrote in
>
> I don't know what you don't "get". The clerics who were butchered were pro-American puppets. The
> Shi'ites are going to have their fundamentalist regime, and will kill anyone who dares to suggest
> otherwise. Good job, President Bush. You've exchanged a secular greedy dictator for a
> fundamentalist regime.
 
"Rob Rudeski" skrev...
> Tom,
>
> Are you saying that you agree that it is the fault of the US military that the museum was looted
> and destroyed?

Agree? When did I fault the US military for the looting? I'm sure they had enough on their plate.

I was reacting to the misplaced gloating. A few hundred happy Iraqis toppling a statue while a lot
more seemed to be out looting and burning.

And gloating over the embassies that got sacked is all well and good, I don't think I'd expect
anything else from some Americans at this point. But I hope you also got a good giggle when you
heard about the looted hospitals.

While the looting of the museum is sad its still only inanimate objects.

M.
 
"Tom Sherman" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
>
> skip wrote:
> >
> > "Mikael Seierup" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > news:[email protected]... <snip>
> >
> > > Looting in the streets you mean?
> >
> > So you look at those pictures and you can only see the looting. So far
the
> > looting seems to be primarily limited to government facilities, the
German
> > embassy, and the UN facilities. Seeing them driving around in the UN inspectors cars puts a wry
> > smile on my face at the irony of it all....
>
> Be sure to take joy in this then. <
>
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/nm/20030412/wl_nm/iraq_baghda d_museum_dc_4
> >
No, looting Baghdad's antiquities museum is not in the same category as making off with the UN
Inspector's SUV's or the chairs in one of Saddam's former palaces. It's a shame they didn't move the
museum holdings to one of their underground vaults before the war started. There surely was enough
time to get this done. Hopefully the missing items can be recovered.

On a lighter note I saw one guy who looted a crane so he could tow a looted bus away. I wonder what
he's planning to with them when he gets home. His wife was probably expecting a bed or a television.

Stuff will probably start appearing on eBay soon.

skip
 
"Tom Sherman" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
>
> skip wrote:
> >
> > I suspect "mr. Bush" has made your world too unsafe for you to be out
dancing
> > in the streets. Better for you to stay inside Mikael and leave the
street
> > dancing to braver souls.
>
> Now that the US military appears to be targeting journalists in Iraq (and before that in
> Afghanistan) [1], could critical Danes be next on the target list?
>
> Remember, "You are with us, or you are against us".
>
> [1] 2 for 2 on Al-Jazeera stations
>
> Tom Sherman - Quad Cities USA (Illinois side)

Yo Mikael:

You friend Tom is hinting the American military has you targeted for extinction as soon as they can
get a few more journalist out of the way. You could be needing a bunker soon. Better start shovel
shopping now. If I were you I'd ask Tom to help with the digging.

skip
 
Rob Rudeski wrote:
>
> Tom,
>
> Are you saying that you agree that it is the fault of the US military that the museum was looted
> and destroyed?

By international law and convention, the US and UK are responsible for maintaining among other
things, law and order in the areas under their control. Since the museum was in an area controlled
by the US/UK forces, it was their responsibility to protect it.

Tom Sherman - Quad Cities USA (Illinois side)
 
"skip" skrev

> You friend Tom is hinting the American military has you targeted for extinction as soon as they
> can get a few more journalist out of the way. You could be needing a bunker soon. Better start
> shovel shopping now. If I were you I'd ask Tom to help with the digging.

Ah lets not overdramatize. (But let me reply in the spirit of your post.)

"Land of the free" seems to go out the window pretty fast to be replaced by blacklisting and
bookburning over at your end so you never know. ;-)

Anyway I'm sure they still need to shoot some more scared civilians and bomb some more of their
allies and own troops. Not to forget fleeing Syrians and Ruskies. Did I miss any? Oh yes,
journalists.

M.
 
"Mikael Seierup" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> "skip" skrev
>
> > You friend Tom is hinting the American military has you targeted for extinction as soon as they
> > can get a few more journalist out of the way.
You
> > could be needing a bunker soon. Better start shovel shopping now. If I were you I'd ask Tom to
> > help with the digging.
>
> Ah lets not overdramatize. (But let me reply in the spirit of your post.)
>
> "Land of the free" seems to go out the window pretty fast to be replaced by blacklisting and
> bookburning over at your end so you never know. ;-)
>
> Anyway I'm sure they still need to shoot some more scared civilians and bomb some more of their
> allies and own troops. Not to forget fleeing Syrians and Ruskies. Did I miss any? Oh yes,
journalists.
>
> M.

Yo Tom:

Mikael says let's not over dramatize. Great idea don't you think?

skip
 
"Rob Rudeski" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
> When did the fundamentalists take over? I missed that on the news.
>
> Rob
>
>
And just what form of government do YOU think the 65% Shi'ite population will choose? Iraq will be a
fundamentalist nation. It's inevitable. The only reason it hasn't been up to this point is Saddam
brutally repressed the Shi'ites.
 
Louder please, couldn't hear you...

"Tom Sherman" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
>
> Kurt wrote:
> > ...Just like some people don't consider the Iraq action a preemptive strike since this could
> > just be considered the next step in
the
> > war started on 9/11/01 (and even before that really)....
>
> THERE IS NO EVIDENCE THAT IRAQ WAS INVOLVED IN THE SEPTEMBER 11, 2001 TERRORIST ATTACKS ON THE US,
> AND NO REPUTABLE EVIDENCE THAT THE BAATH REGIME IN IRAQ HAD ANY REAL CONNECTIONS WITH AL QAIDA.
>
> Tom Sherman - Quad Cities USA (Illinois side)
>
> The first casualty, when war comes, is truth. - Senator Hiram Johnson
 
Well Tom, You may be right, Iraq maybe would never have sold or gave WMD to terrorists, I for one am
glad we will never have to find out (the hard way). When we do verify that they have WMD in Iraq,
contrary to UN resolutions, how will you feel then? If you are asking why we are not in Saudi Arabia
if they do in fact support international terrorism, I do not know, but it does not mean that going
into Iraq was wrong. Perhaps I am naive, but I would be very surprised if we did invade Iraq simply
to get cheap oil, it seems to me there are many other countries to buy oil from than Iraq. As far as
paying full retail price for oil, from what I understand gasoline is less than 25 cents a gallon in
Iraq. Does it really cost so much to ship it here?

Kurt

"Tom Sherman" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
>
> Kurt wrote:
> > ... I regret the means to the end as well, war is never good, but sometimes
it
> > is the least bad. I am not sure what other options there were, 13 years
of
> > negotiating and diplomacy did not work, the Iraq regime did whatever it could get away with
> > regardless of what the UN said. We did not go to
Iraq
> > for cheaper oil, we did not go there to free the Iraq people (although
that
> > is a nice side benefit), we went there to defeat a government that
sponsored
> > global terrorism, just like we did in Afghanistan, and just like we will continue to do until it
> > becomes inherently obvious to the most dense and self-centered despot out there that in that way
> > there lies nothing but
their
> > eventual ruin.
> >
> > When words fail, there comes a time when good and otherwise peaceful
people
> > have to pick up arms and protect themselves, their families, and their
way
> > of life.
>
> The only creditable links between the Baathist Iraqi government and terrorism was its support for
> groups that opposed the Israeli occupation of the West Bank and Gaza Strip and/or Israel itself.
> Iraq is/was less of a supported of international terrorism than our (US) un-invaded "friend" Saudi
> Arabia. [1] There are no known cases of Iraqi sponsored terrorism occurring on US territory.
>
> As for the necessity of invading Iraq to defend the US way of life, only true if we mean consuming
> the lion's share of the world's petroleum supply at absurdly low prices. Any one who believes that
> they are paying the full cost at retail price for oil or other petroleum products in the US is
> sadly misinformed.
>
> [1] Saudi sources are known to fund Al Qaida and related organizations, and 15 of the 19 September
> 11, 2001 hijackers/terrorists were Saudi Arabian. [2]
> [2] NONE OF 19 WAS IRAQI!
>
> Tom Sherman - Quad Cities USA (Illinois side)
>
> "No passion so effectually robs the mind of all its powers of acting and reasoning as fear." -
> Edmund Burke
 
I see the Iraqi people laying claim to what belongs to them.

"Tom Sherman" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
>
> skip wrote:
> >
> > "Mikael Seierup" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > news:[email protected]... <snip>
> >
> > > Looting in the streets you mean?
> >
> > So you look at those pictures and you can only see the looting. So far
the
> > looting seems to be primarily limited to government facilities, the
German
> > embassy, and the UN facilities. Seeing them driving around in the UN inspectors cars puts a wry
> > smile on my face at the irony of it all....
>
> Be sure to take joy in this then. <
>
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/nm/20030412/wl_nm/iraq_baghda d_museum_dc_4
> >
>
> Tom Sherman - Quad Cities USA (Illinois side)
 
Kurt wrote:
>
> Well Tom, You may be right, Iraq maybe would never have sold or gave WMD to terrorists, I for one
> am glad we will never have to find out (the hard way). When we do verify that they have WMD in
> Iraq, contrary to UN resolutions, how will you feel then? If you are asking why we are not in
> Saudi Arabia if they do in fact support international terrorism, I do not know, but it does not
> mean that going into Iraq was wrong. Perhaps I am naive, but I would be very surprised if we did
> invade Iraq simply to get cheap oil, it seems to me there are many other countries to buy oil from
> than Iraq. As far as paying full retail price for oil, from what I understand gasoline is less
> than 25 cents a gallon in Iraq. Does it really cost so much to ship it here?

The invasion of Iraq increases the likelihood of terrorist attacks on the US. One only has to see
how the war is reported in Arab and/or Muslim countries compared to the US [1] to understand this.

Imagine if the US invasion inflamed the situation in Pakistan to the point where there was a
fundamentalist Islamic revolution by the same groups that supported the Taliban in Afghanistan (and
are probably sheltering Osama bin Laden and other Al Qaida members). Then we would have a regime
that not only would support anti-US terrorism, but would also have a significant arsenal of atomic
bombs at their disposal.

As for the cost of gasoline, it is subsidized, both in the US and in Iraq. The producers and sellers
of petroleum products do not pay for the increased health care costs, environmental damage,
permanent stationing of US military forces in oil producing regions, etc. The general public bears
the cost instead. [2]

[1] In this case it does not matter what the real truth is, because the issue is how certain
populations will perceive the US. (The converse is also true, of course).
[2] An example of externalities that the extreme anti-government regulation groups would like us to
ignore when they promote the free market as the solution to all social problems.

Tom Sherman - Quad Cities USA (Illinois side)

"Saddam Hussein is a terrible person, he is a threat to his own people. I think his people would be
better off with a different leader, but there is this sort of romantic notion that if Saddam Hussein
got hit by a bus tomorrow, some Jeffersonian democrat is waiting in the wings to hold popular
elections. (Laughter.) You're going to get -- guess what -- probably another Saddam Hussein. It will
take a little while for them to paint the pictures all over the walls again -- (laughter) -- but
there should be no illusions about the nature of that country or its society. And the American
people and all of the people who second-guess us now would have been outraged if we had gone on to
Baghdad and we found ourselves in Baghdad with American soldiers patrolling the streets two years
later still looking for Jefferson. (Laughter.)" - Colin Powell, then chairman of the Joint Chiefs of
Staff at a press briefing in 1992
 
"Tom Sherman" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...

> By international law and convention, the US and UK are responsible for maintaining among other
> things, law and order in the areas under their control. Since the museum was in an area controlled
> by the US/UK forces, it was their responsibility to protect it.
>
Tom: Under international law and convention how is "area controlled" defined? Can you give a
reference? skip
 
Tom Sherman <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> From my immense database of two cats and two recumbents, I will state that cats prefer the
> Lightning P-38 to the Easy Racers TiGRR. The flat seat pad of the P-38 is a better platform for
> feline sitting and sleeping than the shaped seat base foam of the TiGRR.
>

Hmm... my cats certainly enjoyed my P-38 when I had it in the house. They haven't sampled the Easy
Racers seats (I've got a Cobra, my wife's got a Koolback) since the bikes are kept in the garage and
the cats are kept indoors.

Jeff (1 wife, 2 cats, 3 'bents)
 
"Tom Sherman" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]... <snip>
>
> [1] In this case it does not matter what the real truth is, because the issue is how certain
> populations will perceive the US. (The converse is also true, of course).

As far as how certain populations will perceive the US I'm sure it will be the same old same old.
You know that. Far more important is how the US/UK will perceive certain other populations after we
go through all of the Iraqi intelllegence records and purchases. I just saw a story in a UK paper
about Russia spying on Prime Minister Blair for Saddam. Russia supposedly supplied Saddam with a
list of assassins available for hits. The information was found in the Iraq Intelligence Agency in
Baghdad. Read about it here: http://tinyurl.com/9ekp.

Change of perception is in the wind.

skip
 
I was not going to get into this thread at all, but this one line (bracketed) has really ticked me
off. Can you explain this further?

> Anyway I'm sure they still need to shoot some more scared civilians and (((((bomb some more of
> their allies and own troops)))))))))). Not to forget fleeing Syrians and Ruskies. Did I miss
> any? Oh yes,
journalists.
>
> M.
 
"Joshua Goldberg" skrev...
> I was not going to get into this thread at all, but this one line (bracketed) has really ticked me
> off. Can you explain this further?
>
> > Anyway I'm sure they still need to shoot some more scared civilians and (((((bomb some more of
> > their allies and own troops)))))))))). Not to forget fleeing Syrians and Ruskies. Did I miss
> > any? Oh yes,
> journalists.

A: I was overdramatizing.

B: There has been several incidents of "friendly" fire.

C: Only the bit about the US Military ticked you off? You need to have your double standards
checked I think.

Seriously I hope they all make it back without more dead or wounded. That goes for all parties
in this war.

D.
 
> C: Only the bit about the US Military ticked you off? You need to have your double standards
> checked I think.

Sorry, should be the US bombing their own and allies.
 
"Kurt" skrev...
> I am not sure where you are from, Mikael, but no, I guess we (the US) were not too happy with the
> strike on Pearl Harbor. Although, I guess the rest of the free world was happy with the results of
> it (it got us into the war). Otherwise we might all be typing in German on these newsgroups.
> Besides which, I don't know if the Japanese considered it a preemptive strike since the US had
> been supporting the Allies' war effort for quite a while before that via supplies.

America and Britain had imposed an embargo on the japanese empire. Since Japan imported all its oil
it basically had two choices. It could negotiate or go to war. Since the american fleet posed the
greatest threat to japanese possible military expansion I think its fair to call it a pre-emptive
strike in the technical sense.

But Roosevelt described it best IMHO:

"I ask that the Congress declare that since the unprovoked and dastardly attack by Japan on Sunday,
Dec. 7, a state of war has existed between the United States and the Japanese empire."

M.
 
B. friendly fire incidents are not a surprise to me, it is a forgone conclusion that these will
happen and if you look back in Google you'd see that b4 the invasion began I said that "most" of
the "initial" death and injury sustained by the U.S. troops (will) be caused by "friendly fire"
incidents. I have never been a Civilian under fire, so I cannot relate well to that
experience...and hope I never have to.

Soldiers who are on the firing end of the friendly fire deaths will never be able to shake this off,
they'll return to an unforgiving nation where Military Intelligence will come out of it looking
squeaky clean. War Sucks and your last line re: Seriously I hope they all make it back without more
dead or wounded... I agee with that.
------------------------------------------------
"Mikael Seierup" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> "Joshua Goldberg" skrev...
> > I was not going to get into this thread at all, but this one line (bracketed) has really ticked
> > me off. Can you explain this further?
> >
> > > Anyway I'm sure they still need to shoot some more scared civilians and (((((bomb some more of
> > > their allies and own troops)))))))))). Not to forget fleeing Syrians and Ruskies. Did I miss
> > > any? Oh yes,
> > journalists.
>
> A: I was overdramatizing.
>
> B: There has been several incidents of "friendly" fire.
>
> C: Only the bit about the US Military ticked you off? You need to have your double standards
> checked I think.
>
> Seriously I hope they all make it back without more dead or wounded. That goes for all parties in
> this war.
>
> M.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom Back