Post by: Manedwolf on August 15, 2007, 12:25:44 PM
Quote
An elderly Iraqi woman shows two bullets which she says hit her house following an early coalition forces raid in the predominantly *expletive deleted*it Baghdad suburb of Sadr City. At least 175 people were slaughtered on Tuesday and more than 200 wounded when four suicide truck bombs targeted people from an ancient religious sect in northern Iraq, officials said. (AFP/Wissam al-Okaili)
Post by: Brad Johnson on August 15, 2007, 12:28:34 PM
Brad
Post by: Manedwolf on August 15, 2007, 12:29:19 PM
So they are throwing ammo now instead of using it in their guns?
Brad
Brad
Well, it worked in "Hot Shots Part Deux", didn't it?
Post by: Len Budney on August 15, 2007, 01:13:08 PM
What's Wrong With This Image, Kids?
I guess the Iraqis are so poverty stricken that they have to reload the ammo shot at them, so they can shoot it back!
Post by: Tallpine on August 15, 2007, 01:27:19 PM
I guess it proves that the news media is no less incompetent over there than they are in the USA
Post by: The Rabbi on August 15, 2007, 01:30:56 PM
Don't people think before they write stuff like this??
Post by: Brad Johnson on August 15, 2007, 01:32:58 PM
Quote
Don't people think before they write stuff like this??
You have to ask?
Brad
Post by: Monkeyleg on August 15, 2007, 01:50:32 PM
Um, that's actually Moammar Khadafi under that burqa, and not a woman?
Post by: Paddy on August 15, 2007, 02:02:44 PM
Post by: m1911owner on August 15, 2007, 04:09:05 PM
Those look like WSM or some other overbore cartridges. Where did she get those?
From the
Post by: HankB on August 16, 2007, 03:49:55 AM
I guess it proves that the news media is no less incompetent over there than they are in the USA
Hey, don't badmouth the new media - I have it on good authority that journalism students in college are largely drawn from the ranks of those who scored well into the double digits on their high schools SATs . . .
Post by: wmenorr67 on August 16, 2007, 04:34:33 AM
Post by: Len Budney on August 16, 2007, 04:38:10 AM
They look awful nice and shiny also. Don't recall any of my ammo looking that shiny over here.
I'd bet $2 that it was supplied by the photographer. It struck me as well that Iraqis probably don't polish their ammo as a general rule.
Correction: I'm an idiot. That's supposed to be coalition ammo, not Iraqi ammo. I wondered why she was holding .223, when I assume Iraqi Kalashnikovs are mostly chambered in 7.62x39.
--Len.
Post by: Ben on August 16, 2007, 06:33:44 AM
Post by: Manedwolf on August 16, 2007, 06:46:47 AM
They look awful nice and shiny also. Don't recall any of my ammo looking that shiny over here.
That look like XM193 to me, is it? Is that standard for urban fighting, or would it be M855?
Post by: AJ Dual on August 16, 2007, 09:42:33 AM
"What's Wrong With This Image, Kids? "
Um, that's actually Moammar Khadafi under that burqa, and not a woman?
Um, that's actually Moammar Khadafi under that burqa, and not a woman?
Silly!
It's Manuel Noriega in drag... (Life is pretty rough in a fed.gov supermax...)
Post by: BryanP on August 16, 2007, 10:58:11 AM
Quote
A woman displays bullets after a raid in Baghdad's Sadr City August 12, 2007. Two men were killed while nine others were arrested during a joint raid by the U.S. and Iraqi military forces in Sadr City early on Sunday, police said. REUTERS/Kareem Raheem (IRAQ)
And
Quote
Umm Abdul Zahra holds spent ammunition she found near her home after an overnight raid by U.S. troops in the *expletive deleted*it enclave of Sadr City in Baghdad, Iraq on Sunday, Aug. 12, 2007. Police and residents said U.S and Iraqi troops backed by helicopters raided the east Baghdad neighborhood on early Sunday, killing two people and wounding 4 others. The U.S. military said it was looking into the report. (AP Photo/ Karim Kadim)
Post by: K Frame on August 16, 2007, 11:19:59 AM
It hit her house.
Well, guess what?
Iraq is a frigging war zone.
Post by: Len Budney on August 16, 2007, 11:25:30 AM
Well, guess what?
Iraq is a frigging war zone.
Iraq is a frigging war zone.
Since the invasion was not a defensive war in the first place, and we started it, that's a bit like an arson saying, "Aw, your belongings destroyed by fire? Well guess what: your apartment building is a frigging inferno."
I admit that I'd like to see your reaction to the same statement, if you were the "collateral damage."
--Len.
Post by: K Frame on August 16, 2007, 11:27:40 AM
Post by: Len Budney on August 16, 2007, 11:30:46 AM
"I admit that I'd like to see your reaction to the same statement, if you were the "collateral damage."
I don't see what's such an eye roller about that. You're an innocent bystander, and opposing forces sweep through your neighborhood shooting up the place. Then, when you get a trifle irate, one of them says, "What the hell did you expect, buddy? There's a war on!" For context, suppose that the opposing factions are, say, the Crips and Bloods. You have no interest in their stupid war--but your property has been declared a war zone by thugs that have nothing to do with you.
--Len.
Post by: The Rabbi on August 16, 2007, 11:44:36 AM
Post by: Len Budney on August 16, 2007, 11:55:09 AM
It's a war zone. Bad things happen. If the Iraqis had it together to oust Saddam then they wouldn't be in that situation...
You appear to be saying, "If the Iraqis had obeyed our wishes, we wouldn't be over there imposing our wishes on them using lethal force." Which sounds strikingly like, "If she had only agreed to have sex with me, she wouldn't be in the situation (of being brutally raped)."
Who died and left us God's pen, with which to write decrees like, "You shall topple your ruler who poses no threat to us whatsoever, or else we'll come in and slaughter you by the bushel"?
--Len.
Post by: Manedwolf on August 16, 2007, 11:59:56 AM
Americans wouldn't be there if the insurgents weren't there using the innocent civilians for human shields. And worse.
Or had you not heard about how they'll bust into a house and force the families out or kill them, then use the house as a base and bomb factory?
Post by: Thor on August 16, 2007, 12:02:17 PM
It's a war zone. Bad things happen. If the Iraqis had it together to oust Saddam then they wouldn't be in that situation. I don't know that this woman wasn't a staunch Baathist supporter before the war. It doesn't matter. I don't care that bullets hit her house. If the al Qaeda and other low-lifes weren't hiding in urban areas and using civillians as shields this wouldn't be necessary.
Len?
Americans wouldn't be there if the insurgents weren't there using the innocent civilians for human shields. And worse.
Or had you not heard about how they'll bust into a house and force the families out or kill them, then use the house as a base and bomb factory?
Americans wouldn't be there if the insurgents weren't there using the innocent civilians for human shields. And worse.
Or had you not heard about how they'll bust into a house and force the families out or kill them, then use the house as a base and bomb factory?
What those two said !!! While I might agree that this war was poorly executed in the beginning, at least there seems to be some progress now.
Post by: Len Budney on August 16, 2007, 12:02:35 PM
Americans wouldn't be there if the insurgents weren't there using the innocent civilians for human shields. And worse.
Insurgents wouldn't be there if we had refrained from toppling a country that posed no threat whatsoever to us. Arguing that we're morally obligated to be shooting up their neighborhoods because they're so dangerous (thanks to us) is a bit like blowing up city hall and the police station, and then saying, "This town needs me to maintain law and order!"
--Len.
Post by: The Rabbi on August 16, 2007, 12:09:25 PM
It's a war zone. Bad things happen. If the Iraqis had it together to oust Saddam then they wouldn't be in that situation...
You appear to be saying, "If the Iraqis had obeyed our wishes, we wouldn't be over there imposing our wishes on them using lethal force." Which sounds strikingly like, "If she had only agreed to have sex with me, she wouldn't be in the situation (of being brutally raped)."
Who died and left us God's pen, with which to write decrees like, "You shall topple your ruler who poses no threat to us whatsoever, or else we'll come in and slaughter you by the bushel"?
--Len.
Saddam was a brutal dictator who murdered millions of his own people. There i no debate on this.
Saddam was a destabilizing force in the region who invaded other countries. There is no debate on this either.
Saddam lost the Gulf War and agreed to certain conditions, conditions that he failed to abide by.
There is no debate on this either.
Saddam had a 30 year history of harboring terrorists and fomenting terrorist type plots. No debate here either.
Saddam was in material violation of a number of UN resolutions, resolutions the UN refused to enforce other than to pass more resolutions and call for restraint.
So to say he posed no threat to us and the US just went in for no apparant reason is disingenuous at best.
Post by: wmenorr67 on August 16, 2007, 12:15:28 PM
Post by: Tallpine on August 16, 2007, 12:20:07 PM
Quote
Saddam was a destabilizing force in the region who invaded other countries. There is no debate on this either.
The US seemed to like that just fine when he was using our weapons to fight Iran.
Post by: K Frame on August 16, 2007, 12:21:23 PM
And we liked it just fine when Stalin was using our weapons to fight the Nazis.
Post by: The Rabbi on August 16, 2007, 12:21:48 PM
Quote
Saddam was a destabilizing force in the region who invaded other countries. There is no debate on this either.
The US seemed to like that just fine when he was using our weapons to fight Iran.
Wow, it's in the water. Another non-sequitur. How does that change the basic point, that Saddam was a force for instability and aggression?
Post by: Len Budney on August 16, 2007, 12:25:37 PM
It would only appear like that to someone intent on undercutting this country and forgetting history.
Given you can't read my mind, imputing motives to me is ad hominem and a personal attack.
Quote
Saddam was a brutal dictator who murdered millions of his own people. There i no debate on this.
The highest number I've ever seen is one million. Which is certainly quite a lot, but does that justify our killing a comparable number? Meddling Halfwit admitted that our sanctions against Iraq were responsible for half a million deaths, though she reassured us that it was "worth it." Since then, the death toll is variously estimated between 50,000 and ten times that number. It's easily foreseeable that before the US is done with Iraq, we'll have killed as many as Saddam--but since we're the "good guys," we can only assume that the million we kill needed killin'. Not to mention the couple million people already rendered homeless, either as internal or external refugees. In short, under the best possible interpretation, the cure is as bad as the disease.
But it's hypocritical to use Saddam's badness as a cloak for the invasion, considering that we refuse to invade worse places with greater suffering. For that matter, we ignored his brutality back when he was our guy, and we armed him against Iran. We are obviously not motivated by humanitarian motives.
But the bigger question is the one I originally asked: who died and left us God's corvette? Back when George Washington condemned foreign adventurism, were there no bad guys out there that needed killing? Of course there were. The point is that we aren't God, and is isn't our job to trot the globe righting wrongs, abasing the proud and exalting the humble. Attempting to play God in this way is doomed to failure, even if we have the purest of motives at all times--which we don't.
Quote
So to say he posed no threat to us and the US just went in for no apparant reason is disingenuous at best.
"Us" means "the United States." He posed NO threat to us. He probably threatened "our interests," where "our interests" refers to our plans for other nations we have no business interfering in, but he posed no threat to any of the fifty states, whether military, economic or political. He was utterly powerless to project power beyond his borders, let alone get within a thousand miles of any of the United States. We've redefined "threat to us" to mean that if Saddam does business with Bahrain, "we" are harmed.
If we applied to same sort of reasoning in our own lives, seeing the girl next door talking to the pool boy is a "threat" to me, because she might end up dating him, in which case she probably won't be interested in having an affair with me at some future time. Therefore, I shoot the pool boy and drain the pool in "self defense."
--Len.
Post by: wmenorr67 on August 16, 2007, 12:32:39 PM
Post by: m1911owner on August 16, 2007, 12:34:12 PM
But the bigger question is the one I originally asked: who died and left us God's corvette?
About 3,000 people in the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, and others on the USS Cole, various U.S. embassies, etc.
Post by: wmenorr67 on August 16, 2007, 12:37:10 PM
Post by: Len Budney on August 16, 2007, 12:37:29 PM
But the bigger question is the one I originally asked: who died and left us God's corvette?
About 3,000 people in the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, and others on the USS Cole, various U.S. embassies, etc.
The dead people that Iraq had nothing whatsoever to do with? How exactly do you make that connection? Someone shoots my kid, but I can't find him--so instead, I find a random person on the street whose looks I don't like, and I gun him down?
--Len.
Post by: Manedwolf on August 16, 2007, 12:39:23 PM
But the bigger question is the one I originally asked: who died and left us God's corvette?
About 3,000 people in the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, and others on the USS Cole, various U.S. embassies, etc.
And in the London underground and on a bus, in a nightclub in Bali, people in Casablanca, in a Moscow theater...
Post by: m1911owner on August 16, 2007, 12:40:48 PM
The dead people that Iraq had nothing whatsoever to do with? How exactly do you make that connection? Someone shoots my kid, but I can't find him--so instead, I find a random person on the street whose looks I don't like, and I gun him down?
Plenty of people in Iraq had a lot to do with that. Sadam Hussein, various terrorists who were based there, those who ran and learned at the terrorist camp with the airliner that was there for them to practice taking over an airliner, etc., etc., etc.
Post by: Len Budney on August 16, 2007, 12:46:15 PM
Plenty of people in Iraq had a lot to do with that. Sadam Hussein...
Who was well known at the time to have no ties to Al Qaeda--indeed, to be an enemy of Al Qaeda, because they were religious extremists and he was a secular socialist. What connection are you claiming? And with what proof?
Quote
...various terrorists who were based there...
Proof?
Quote
those who ran and learned at the terrorist camp with the airliner that was there for them to practice taking over an airliner, etc., etc., etc.
Proof that Salmon Pak was used by Al Qaeda?
Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11. The US demanded extradition of Bin Ladin from Afghanistan, which was proper. The Afghans asked for evidence before agreeing to extradite, which was also proper. The US refused and invaded, which was improper, and they did it without declaring war, which was improper--but at the very least, they were in fact targeting the location that Bin Ladin was known to be. Although it was not handled correctly, Afghanistan was at least defensible with reference to 9/11. Iraq, on the other hand, is not.
--Len.
Post by: The Rabbi on August 16, 2007, 01:16:22 PM
It would only appear like that to someone intent on undercutting this country and forgetting history.
Given you can't read my mind, imputing motives to me is ad hominem and a personal attack.
Quote
I don't recall using your name anywhere. Thus it cannot be an ad hominem.
The highest number I've ever seen is one million. Which is certainly quite a lot, but does that justify our killing a comparable number?
No, but it would have justified his own citizens overthrowing him, which was my original point.
Meddling Halfwit admitted that our sanctions against Iraq were responsible for half a million deaths, though she reassured us that it was "worth it." Since then, the death toll is variously estimated between 50,000 and ten times that number. It's easily foreseeable that before the US is done with Iraq, we'll have killed as many as Saddam--but since we're the "good guys," we can only assume that the million we kill needed killin'. Not to mention the couple million people already rendered homeless, either as internal or external refugees. In short, under the best possible interpretation, the cure is as bad as the disease.Now who is engaging in ad hominems. The fact that the number has been "variously estimated" tells me no one knows and the numbers are being manipulated for political reasons.
But it's hypocritical to use Saddam's badness as a cloak for the invasion, considering that we refuse to invade worse places with greater suffering. For that matter, we ignored his brutality back when he was our guy, and we armed him against Iran. We are obviously not motivated by humanitarian motives.
No, it is hypocritical to say that if we dont invade everyplace then we cannot invade any place. It is not his "badness" (whatever that is) that made us invade him, it was his flouting of UN resolutions, etc that I detailed in my post.
But the bigger question is the one I originally asked: who died and left us God's corvette? Back when George Washington condemned foreign adventurism, were there no bad guys out there that needed killing? Of course there were. The point is that we aren't God, and is isn't our job to trot the globe righting wrongs, abasing the proud and exalting the humble. Attempting to play God in this way is doomed to failure, even if we have the purest of motives at all times--which we don't.Every nation has the responsibility to its citizens to act in its own best interest. The U.S. has many interests, business and political. This was no different.
"Us" means "the United States." He posed NO threat to us. He probably threatened "our interests," where "our interests" refers to our plans for other nations we have no business interfering in, but he posed no threat to any of the fifty states, whether military, economic or political. He was utterly powerless to project power beyond his borders, let alone get within a thousand miles of any of the United States. We've redefined "threat to us" to mean that if Saddam does business with Bahrain, "we" are harmed.
If we applied to same sort of reasoning in our own lives, seeing the girl next door talking to the pool boy is a "threat" to me, because she might end up dating him, in which case she probably won't be interested in having an affair with me at some future time. Therefore, I shoot the pool boy and drain the pool in "self defense."
--Len.
Saddam was a brutal dictator who murdered millions of his own people. There i no debate on this.
The highest number I've ever seen is one million. Which is certainly quite a lot, but does that justify our killing a comparable number?
No, but it would have justified his own citizens overthrowing him, which was my original point.
Meddling Halfwit admitted that our sanctions against Iraq were responsible for half a million deaths, though she reassured us that it was "worth it." Since then, the death toll is variously estimated between 50,000 and ten times that number. It's easily foreseeable that before the US is done with Iraq, we'll have killed as many as Saddam--but since we're the "good guys," we can only assume that the million we kill needed killin'. Not to mention the couple million people already rendered homeless, either as internal or external refugees. In short, under the best possible interpretation, the cure is as bad as the disease.
But it's hypocritical to use Saddam's badness as a cloak for the invasion, considering that we refuse to invade worse places with greater suffering. For that matter, we ignored his brutality back when he was our guy, and we armed him against Iran. We are obviously not motivated by humanitarian motives.
No, it is hypocritical to say that if we dont invade everyplace then we cannot invade any place. It is not his "badness" (whatever that is) that made us invade him, it was his flouting of UN resolutions, etc that I detailed in my post.
But the bigger question is the one I originally asked: who died and left us God's corvette? Back when George Washington condemned foreign adventurism, were there no bad guys out there that needed killing? Of course there were. The point is that we aren't God, and is isn't our job to trot the globe righting wrongs, abasing the proud and exalting the humble. Attempting to play God in this way is doomed to failure, even if we have the purest of motives at all times--which we don't.
Quote
So to say he posed no threat to us and the US just went in for no apparant reason is disingenuous at best.
"Us" means "the United States." He posed NO threat to us. He probably threatened "our interests," where "our interests" refers to our plans for other nations we have no business interfering in, but he posed no threat to any of the fifty states, whether military, economic or political. He was utterly powerless to project power beyond his borders, let alone get within a thousand miles of any of the United States. We've redefined "threat to us" to mean that if Saddam does business with Bahrain, "we" are harmed.
If we applied to same sort of reasoning in our own lives, seeing the girl next door talking to the pool boy is a "threat" to me, because she might end up dating him, in which case she probably won't be interested in having an affair with me at some future time. Therefore, I shoot the pool boy and drain the pool in "self defense."
--Len.